First screenwriter to e-mail me gets $150 off 4 pages of notes for their screenplay! – carsonreeves1@gmail.com

We gotta hook that reader!

Guessssss whaaaaaatttttt?

Next weekend is a FIRST SCENE SHOWDOWN for the Blood & Ink participants. In fact, let’s make it official. Starting this minute, you can send me your opening scenes for the Showdown.

What: Blood & Ink First Scene Showdown
Rules: You can only enter if you are a Blood & Ink participant
Length: Scenes can be as long as you want them to be
What I need: Script Title, Genre, Logline, a PDF of your first scene
Deadline: 9 pm Pacific Time, Thursday, September 25th
Send to: carsonreeves3@gmail.com

I’ll review the winning scene Monday and dig into why it works.

Now, if I’m being honest, I’m both excited and nervous about this experiment. In my experience reading thousands of screenplays, the first scene says a ton about what will follow. Which is why first scenes are so important.

However, I will say this: Coming up with a great first scene is not a requirement to write a great script. I’ve read plenty of good scripts that didn’t blow me out of the water with their first scene. With that said, I can count on one hand the number of good scripts that I’ve read after reading a weak first scene. Also, an awesome first scene is one of the better indicators that you’re about to read something good. So, it’s important.

Another thing that’s important to remember here because I’m sure it’s going to come up in the comments: The first scenes you see in movies are not a good indicator of the first scenes you should be writing in your script.

A lot of things can be going on that result in an uneventful first scene in a movie. For one, if a studio is developing a movie in-house, they’re not worried about hooking a reader. They’re just trying to make the best movie possible. And, generally speaking, if you’ve gone to the theater or rented a movie, you’re probably not turning the movie off after the first scene. So they don’t worry about that as much.

This is true for writer-directors as well. They don’t need to win anyone over with their script. They know the movie is getting made. So, they take the same approach as studios. They care about making the best movie possible, not hooking a reader with their first scene THEN making the best movie possible. However, the smart ones will write great first scenes into their script, such as Tarantino with Inglourious Basterds and David Robert Mitchell with his creepy “girl being followed by no one” opener in It Follows.

Another variable that screws up movie openings is title card sequences. You don’t have to write those into a script but you do need to add them when you make the movie so there’s something to put the title credits over. I will never forget how terribly they ruined one of the best scripts ever, in Source Code, which opened with this shocking scenario of a man waking up in another man’s body on a train, with a bomb about to blow up within minutes. And because they needed a title card sequence, they instead started with these wide sweeping endless shots of a train shooting along tracks in the countryside. It was the exact opposite tone of what you wanted that movie to start like.

So, don’t use ho-hum opening scenes in movies as an excuse for why it’s okay to open with a ho-hum scene in your script. Trust me, the reader is not thinking that way. All they’re thinking is, “Am I entertained?” And if the answer’s no, they’re already considering giving up on your script.

Weak first scenes have become one of the most common things I call out in screenplay consultations. Let’s get into why.

CHOOSING THE SCENE ITSELF

The number one note I give about opening scenes is: “Why did you choose to start with this scene?” You can literally write anything – ANYTHING – for your opening scene. Yet I read so many opening scenes that are beyond tame, that are beyond bland. Nothing interesting happens in them. And I’m just baffled by it. This is what you chose to open your script with?? Knowing that nobody in this town has any time. Knowing that nobody likes to read. Knowing that every person who opens a script from an unknown screenwriter expects it to be terrible. And this is the scene you’re going with? I get so frustrated because I don’t think writers understand the level of urgency they’re facing with readers.

Which leads me to my solution to this problem: Win them over right away. That’s how you want to treat your opening scene. There should almost be this desperation to write the single best scene ever to hook the reader. You may think that’s overkill. I promise you it isn’t. It is so so soooooo very hard to write anything that someone likes. So, if you’re not trying your best from the jump, you don’t have a shot. Think VERY hard about your first scene and what it’s going to be. Do not casually come up with something because I guarantee that the reader is going to feel that casualness and they’re going to have one foot out the door. From there, if you give them one more reason to stop reading, they will. You want to create the opposite effect with your opening scene. You want it to be so good that it automatically buys 30 more pages from the reader.

SETUP-ITIS

One of the biggest roadblocks in writing a great first scene is the fact that you have to deal with setup. In any screenplay, you have to set up your characters and your plot ASAP. And so what ends up happening is that writers go into that first scene with a huge handicap. They’re not just thinking about writing a great scene. They’re thinking about “How do I write a great first scene and set up my characters and plot along the way?” It’s like trying to write with one hand tied behind your back.

Ideally, you want as much freedom as possible when writing that first scene so that all the entertaining options are on the table. You have every tool available to you to write something great. To prove how valuable this is, look at one of the greatest horror first scenes ever, which occurred in Kevin Williamson’s spec script for Scream. One of the reasons that scene was so great was because Williamson didn’t have to worry about setting up any of his characters, as the scene only consisted of characters that weren’t in the movie (save for the villain, of course). You can see how that freedom allows you to just focus on entertaining the reader.

I recently was dealing with this in a consultation. The writer had a particularly hefty set of things he needed to set up in his story in the first act. And so every time we would rewrite the scene, we’d run up against the same problem. The scene couldn’t breathe because we were always so focused on setting up this character and establishing this plot point that was going to pay off in the third act, etc.

So I finally said to the writer, “Here’s what we’re going to do. You are going to write the most entertaining scene you can without worrying about setting a single character or plot point up.” And he went back and he ended up writing a scene that was 50 times better than anything he’d written before. And then we just went back through that scene and found little areas where we could set up the things he needed to set up. So, if you’re having that issue that this writer had, that may be a good solution to it.

BEWARE THE OBVIOUS OPENING SCENE

You have to be aware of this specific issue because it’s the one issue where you FEEL like you’re doing the right thing but you’re actually writing a weak scene. This occurs when you write the opening scene that 99 out of 100 writers would’ve written as well. For example, since Wednesday’s review is still fresh in my mind, let’s say that you’re writing a movie about a haunted house and your opening scene is a kid sees something scary in his closet. Or if you’re writing a zombie outbreak movie and the first scene is us trying to drive home during a zombie outbreak.

Technically, something exciting is happening during the scene. There’s tension. It’s scary. But it’s so obvious that we (the reader) already feel like we’re ahead of you (the writer). I mean, we already know what’s going to happen in the scene. That alone means you’re not being creative enough.

Instead, you should be digging deeper and looking for a scene that still stays true to your premise, of course, but that isn’t obvious enough that every writer would’ve thought of it. There are so many death scenes you could choose to feature in a Final Destination movie. One that occurs on a “Space Needle” restaurant is the last one I would’ve come up with. Which is a big reason why the opening scene in Final Destination: Bloodlines remains my favorite movie scene of the year.

SO WHAT SHOULD YOU ACTUALLY WRITE?

The four best options for your opening scene are: a) a mini-movie, b) drop us into an already occurring situation, c) something with heavy conflict, or d) something that plays, in an interesting way, with the specific conceit of your concept.

A mini-movie is something that builds like a movie. It has a setup. It has the conflict, and then it has the resolution. A great example would be the opening to Scream. Bonus points if the story focuses on suspense, which the Scream scene obviously does. A strange caller keeps calling the babysitter, building up the suspense of what he’s going to do.

Drop us into something exciting that’s going on. It’s hard not to be invested in an emerging situation that has some stakes attached to it. The Dark Knight, for example. We’re dropped into a bank robbery scene just as it’s about to happen. Again, you’re looking for scenes that it would be hard for a reader to stop reading. I don’t know why you would stop reading if you were dropped into the beginning of a bank robbery. It’d have to be one boring ass bank robbery.

Conflict should always be your safety net if you can’t think of something that creative or surprising for your first scene. Conflict is the lifeblood of drama so as long as you come up with a compelling scenario that’s packed with conflict, it should hook the reader. And the great thing about conflict is that the scene doesn’t even need to match the genre. It can just be two characters at odds about something. This is great if you have a horror script but the variables don’t line up for you to start your script with a scary scene. You can pull out a good conflict-filled scene and hook a reader easily if it’s well written.

For example, if your horror movie is about a single mother and her child being haunted, maybe the opening scene is the father coming home late from work one night and the wife is suspicious that he was out with another woman. If you write that scene well, and it’s not on-the-nose, and you play it so that we’re not entirely sure if he was out with another woman or not, that scene can easily hook a reader. That blowup then leads to him leaving. And we cut to several months later with the woman and son moving into an old house temporarily. And the haunting can begin.

Finally, you have “concept-specific” openings. You should be looking for these if you have a unique concept. It Follows is a great example. It’s a movie about these entities, who no one else can see but the target, who must constantly try and avoid being caught. The opening scene plays into this unique setup perfectly. We watch as a woman inexplicably runs out of her house at dawn continuing to look behind as if someone’s chasing her, despite the fact that there’s no one there. That’s the kind of opening that creates curiosity and intrigue. I’d definitely keep reading after I read that opening scene.

Now, I’m only trying to guide you here. If you feel lost, I’m hoping this post will give you some ideas. But the best opening scenes to me are scenes that I wouldn’t have been able to think of myself. That’s what makes me truly feel like I’m reading somebody who has a special idea. So, don’t let these rules constrain you in any way. You don’t have to abide by them. If you have a strong feeling that you’ve got a good opening scene and it doesn’t match up with my advice today, by all means write it. Cause sometimes it is just about intuition.

I’m very excited to see what you guys come up with. So, start sending me those scenes! And if you’re really struggling, you can always order a scene consult from me. If the scene is 5 pages or less, they’re 100 bucks for 1 page of notes. Every additional page is 10 bucks more. carsonreeves1@gmail.com (anybody can get this consult. You don’t have to be a Blood & Ink participant).

Can the writer of Bird Box get lightning to strike twice?

Genre: Horror
Premise: A young girl gets secret visits from a woman in her closet who calls herself “Other Mommy,” until the girl’s mother finds out and looks for ways to terminate the ghost.
About: Horror titans Blumhouse and Atomic Monster seem to be retooling this after their recent bomb of the movie where they oddly thought it was a good idea to turn female Chucky into a superhero. Incidents Around The House is most certainly a return to form for Jason Blum’s production company. It is simple, it is contained, it focuses on a freaky ass monster. The film will star Jessica Chastain as the mother. The screenplay adaptation will be written by Nathan Elston, who was one of the big staff writers on Succession. The book’s author, Josh Malerman, wrote the book, Bird Box, which is one of Netflix’s most watched films ever.
Writer: Josh Malerman
Details: about 370 pages

Before we get things rolling today, let’s ask the question a lot of you are dying to know. Would Incidents Around The House have made it into the Blood & Ink Showdown based on its logline alone?

The answer is…. no.

It would not.

It’s not a juicy enough concept.

Before everyone freaks out and says what’s the point of the Blood & Ink Showdown if you wouldn’t even accept a script that would’ve turned into a giant Hollywood movie, these questions are always more complicated than they first appear to be.

The reason this is getting made has nothing to do with its concept. It’s getting made because it comes from the author who created a giant hit movie for Netflix, in Birdbox. There is no time in your career when your ideas are less judged than when you’ve come out with a hit movie. You could write a movie about growing arugula in the Congo and the studios would all bid millions for it.

The Blood & Ink Showdown is attempting to capture Hollywood’s interest from nothing. We don’t have a hit movie we can rest on. So we have to win Hollywood over with a flashy strong concept.

Now, the bigger question, as it applies to today is, despite the small concept, is the story any good?

A young girl named Bela (I’m assuming she’s around 9 or 10) is being visited at night by a woman from her closet who has asked Bela to call her “Other Mommy.” This story is told through Bela’s point of view. And so every experience that occurs is seen through her eyes and ears.

When Other Mommy isn’t pestering her, Bela is fighting off concerns about her parents’ (Ursula and Russ) marriage. Ursula is staying out much later each night. She always comes home smelling like booze. And, as Bela puts it, her parents don’t “hold hands as much anymore.”

While watching her parents’ marriage deteriorate in real time, Other Mommy is becoming more aggressive. She doesn’t just want to hang out with Bela anymore. She wants permission to “go into Bela’s heart.” Bela doesn’t know what that means but she gets the sense that it’s bad and begins to pull away from Other Mommy.

One night, when Other Mommy tricks Bela into thinking she’s her real mom, she tells Bela about her deepest darkest secrets, namely that she lives her life for lust, that she’s slept with more men than she can count, that she doesn’t love Russ and is much more interested in other men. As this is happening, the bedroom light switches on and Bela’s real mom is standing in the doorway. She sees Other Mommy (who was impersonating her) and has a full-on meltdown.

Ursula quickly grabs Bela and they leave the house to stay with friends. Soon, Russ is with them, and the three are trying to figure out what to do about this. When they realize that Other Mommy can follow them wherever they go, and that Other Mommy plans to use Bela’s body to reincarnate herself, they gear up to take the monster on. If only they knew what they were up against.

There’s no doubt that Incidents nails its creepy-factor. The way Other Mommy slithers out of the closet each night to talk with Bella. The way her eyes are sometimes at the bottom or sides of her face. The way she manipulates her. The uncomfortable mystery behind her ongoing question: “Can I come into your heart?”

And I thought it was a genius move to tell the story through the point of view of a child. One of the harder things to do in any genre is to avoid being on-the-nose. But when you tell a story through the eyes of a child, their innocence gives you permission to be on-the-nose.

For example, Ursula and Russ’s marriage is deteriorating. In normal third-person perspective writing, you would have them get into a lot of fights, it would all be on the nose and, as a result, it would feel clumsy.

But here, with Bela observing, she can say the obvious things and they don’t feel obvious because they’re coming from the innocence of a child who is experiencing all of this for the first time. “Mommy and daddy don’t hold hands as much as they used to.” There are a lot of observations like that which all feel natural behind the perceptive eyes of Bela.

But Incidents Around The House suffers from too simplistic of a narrative. Not only is the antagonist simplistic but the whole setup is simplistic. The entire first half of the story, save for two scenes I think, takes place in their small little house.

And there’s not even a good reason for it. It’s established that Other Mommy can follow them anywhere. So it’s not like we need to stay at the house to get the scares.

I’m okay with narratives that keep things contained WHEN IT’S ORGANIC TO THE STORY. For example, in Alien, there’s nowhere to go. They’re in the middle of space. So they have to stay on this ship. But to spend 150 pages in a house that we don’t have to be in? Get us out more! Create some variety in the story. Variety isn’t just the spice of life. It’s the spice of storytelling.

With that said, you don’t want to focus *only* on the scares. Too many scares delivered too frequently will numb your reader. Effective horror builds towards each scare over several scenes (typically 3-6), delivers the payoff, then begins building toward the next one.

During these buildup phases, you develop character storylines that emotionally invest your audience. Incidents Around The House executed this well. I found myself genuinely curious about this deteriorating marriage. What was Ursula hiding? How devastating would her secrets prove to be? What would happen when Russ inevitably discovered the truth? The script clearly established Bela’s desperation to keep her parents together, which raised the emotional stakes considerably. All of this character work was genuinely compelling.

The problem arose in how these human elements connected—or failed to connect—with Other Mommy. Rather than weaving together cleverly, the two narrative threads often felt at odds. At times, the script seemed to position Other Mommy as some kind of shadow-version of Ursula, suggesting a psychological doubling. But pages later, Other Mommy would be presented as an entirely separate entity from the void, desperate to return to the living world.

This represents a common writing pitfall. The author develops the story’s connections to about 75% completion—just enough for readers to glimpse how elements might relate—but stops short of fully realizing those connections. That missing 25% of clarity leaves the entire narrative feeling frustratingly murky.

The end here, which I won’t spoil, is beyond murky. I have no idea what I’m supposed to feel and that’s the result of poor writing.

Which is why I can’t recommend Incidents Around The House. But, if you need a cheap quick scary read, you could do worse.

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

What I learned: Incidents Around The House and Bird Box are the perfect two concepts to compare in regards to The Blood & Ink Showdown. One is very high concept and would’ve been one of the top entries in the competition. The other idea just isn’t big or unique enough and, as a result, is probably going to struggle at the box office. Never underestimate the power of a good concept. It’s like being the celebrity at the party. It doesn’t mean you’re going to get laid but it sure as hell increases your chances.

The winning script of the Second Wave Showdown – and the long-time Scriptshadow reader who wrote the screenplay – gets a review!

Genre: Action-Adventure
Premise: After one of their own murders a Comanche boy, a skirmish leaves a small group of Spanish cavalrymen stranded without horses deep in hostile territory, facing the dangers posed by vengeful warriors, nature and each other.
About: A few months ago, we had a giant showdown (screenwriting competition). This past weekend, I put up five scripts that just missed making that showdown to see if I had overlooked a gem or two. You guys voted on your favorite one and that ended up being this script, Enemy. I know that the writer, Clint Williams, has been reading the site forever. So it’s fun to see his latest script get featured.
Writer: Clint Williams
Details: 110 pages

I have an inkling that Westerns are going to make a small comeback. I know this isn’t a prototypical Western but it’s Western-adjacent. I believe this because the Superhero genre is limping badly. It may finally be on its way out if they don’t come up with a fresh new superhero franchise soon. And, in the chasm that that genre will leave behind, it only makes sense that one of the most reliable genres in Hollywood history will start churning out movies again.

The year is 1731. We are in West Texas. A group of Spanish warriors, led by Tomas De Torquemada, are up in Texas territory looking to spread the word of the Lord Jesus Christ. But that plan gets interrupted when they encounter a Comanche town. Since the Comanche men are out hunting, Tomas orders his team to burn the town down (he doesn’t kill anybody though).

Later, as they continue up north, they encounter a young Comanche boy. Cristobal, the troublemaker in the group, proceeds to kill him, which pisses Tomas off. Now, he says, they’re going to come after us.

And come after them they do. While camping out in the prairie, a group of roughly a dozen Comanche warriors on horses attacks. There are casualties on both sides but the Spanish lose their horses.

A second round of fighting ensues, ending in a stalemate and Tomas decides it’s time to escape north. So the group heads north into the forest. There, the Comanche, led by Nacona, whose son is the one who was killed, strategically sets fires throughout the forest to push the Spanish where they want them to go. After three days of intense trekking, they end up right back at their old camp. They were tricked!

The two sides gear up for a final battle but, just as it’s about to commence, a new enemy enters the fray, pushing the Comanche towards the Spanish. This showdown was inevitable. Who will win? Who will perish? Only one way to find out (script link below!).

Let me start off by saying what I liked most about this script. I liked the conflict between Tomas and Cristobal. Every time we were inside of this group and the tension between these two rose up, I was entertained.

And it was a smart move by Clint. Cause one of the things I always maintain about screenplays is that you want to focus on the things that give you the most bang for your buck. If two characters are going to be around each other for 80% of your script, and you can come up with a compelling unresolved conflict between them, that’s going to pay dividends in 10, 15, maybe even 20 scenes.

The other conflict in the story, between the Spanish and the Comanche, did not work for me. And I kept asking myself, “Why?” I eventually figured it out. It came down to two things. Number one is that the side that’s done the bad thing (killing someone) is the side we’re asked to root for. The Spanish kill this Comanche warrior’s son yet we stay with the Spanish the whole movie. Why should I be invested in the “bad” side? Why should I want to be with them?

Number two, the hook that got me to pick this script was the Spanish getting stuck in a huge underdog situation. From what I understood, this small group of people were stuck in this overwhelmingly uneven battle where they had no chance of survival. Underdog scenarios are one of the most dependably dramatic scenarios you can write. Audiences always root for underdogs.

But based on what I was reading, this was more of an even battle. There were more Comanches than Spanish but it wasn’t a ridiculously high number. Somewhere around 15 Comanche I think? Meanwhile our Spanish group had WAY BETTER technology. They had guns and armor. The Comanche had bows-and-arrows.

This “even battle” was solidified after the first skirmish when the Spanish took out so many of the Comanche that the Comanche momentarily gave up and decided to collect their dead.

In storytelling, understanding how to craft a collection of variables that make the audience root for who you want them to root for is an essential skill. As writers, you should be able to set up the dynamic exactly how you want and then dial it up or down depending on how intense you want it to be. Unfortunately, we don’t get that here.

I’m going to finish off by saying something some of you may push back on, but hear me out. If this had been 200 Comanche warriors against five Spanish soldiers—that’s a movie I would see. I would not see this current movie. The odds are too even.

In storytelling, the safer we feel about your heroes’ situation, the less dramatic tension there is in the script. And I felt very safe here. But 200 Comanche warriors chasing a group of five? I would feel an unending anxiety throughout the script, which is what you want your reader to feel. You want them feeling that unease. That’s what keeps them reading.

You might counter my suggestion by saying, “Making the Comanches 200 versus 5 is ridiculous. But how in the world would the Spanish soldiers escape?” That’s exactly my point!!! That question you just asked is the same question readers are going to ask: “How in the world are they going to get out of this?” Which is exactly what makes reading the script so exciting!  You want to see how they pull off the impossible.

Do you absolutely need 200 Comanches to make this script work? No. There are other combinations of variables to weight things heavily in the Comanches’ favor. My point is that one of those must be established. Because the way this script was constructed, I never feared much for the Spanish soldiers. Even at their worst, I thought the odds were pretty good for them to survive. And the second the reader believes your heroes are safe, you’re done—because they’re not being entertained anymore.

I think this script is okay. It’s definitely cinematic. But I can’t personally recommend it only because I didn’t think it gave me enough. I think you got 60% of what the concept promised. I need that number to be up above 85%. Simply making the odds much worse for the Spanish could do wonders for this story.

Script link: Enemy

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

What I learned: Yesterday I talked about risk. It’s important that we continue to take risks as writers because the lack of risk will equal a predictable screenplay. So, I asked myself, what risk could’ve been taken here? Because it’s not just the risk itself you must take into consideration—it’s the aftermath. The script still needs to make sense.  I could have a herd of buffalo mow all the Spanish down, eliminating the threat to the Comanche. That’s a risk.   But what would that do to my screenplay? The story would be over. Instead, what I would’ve done here is, at the midpoint (a great spot to take a big risk), I would’ve had Cristobal kill Tomas. And now, the devil is in charge of your group. I would be much more excited to read the second half of the script had that happened than this draft.

I’m giving out ONE discounted screenplay consultation (notes for your script). I’ll give you $100 off. The first person to e-mail me claims the deal. Your script doesn’t have to be ready yet but you do have to pay now to get the deal. carsonreeves1@gmail.com

You know sometimes I come on here with a less-than-confident understanding of why a movie did well at the box office. For example, I remain baffled as to why Minecraft made a billion dollars. Some people will tell you, “It’s a popular video game, Carson! That’s why.” Well, I can give you 20 movies that were made from popular video games that all bombed. So that’s not the most convincing argument.

With that said, I still have an approximation of why a movie like Minecraft did well. It was a big fun live-action family movie that used a proven formula and marketing angle (the same one that launched the Jumanji franchise) to appeal to the masses.

But when I heard that a movie I’m convinced didn’t exist until 4 days ago, Demon Slayer: Infinity Castle, made 70 million dollars this weekend, I couldn’t give you a fraction of an argument as to how it happened. I watched the trailer to the film and had absolutely no idea what was going on.

Yet somehow, it pulled in 900 times as much as Eddington. You guys could put together an AI_assisted 150 page dissertation on why this movie made money and if I read it 46 times, I would still not know why it made money. So, I’m not going to pretend like I have any idea. But don’t worry. I’m going to see it this week in Imax so I can properly review it and report back about the movie.

Pft, yeah right!

I’m more thrown by The Long Walk only making 11 million dollars. I thought the trailer for that film was the best trailer of the year. And its weak showing puts a dent in our little plan of producing the next great horror film, as it screws up all of the momentum the genre had.

But that leads me to today’s topic, which is something I talk about a lot: TAKING RISKS. Especially when it comes to your concepts. Because although The Long Walk is considered horror, it’s a very nontraditional horror concept. It doesn’t have ghosts. It doesn’t have demons. It doesn’t have monsters. The horror is completely human-generated. And that type of horror never does as well. Which is probably why The Long Walk, which was first written all the way back in 1979 (under Stephen King’s pseudonym, Richard Bachman) has taken so long to get made.

What’s going on here?

Don’t worry. I’m going to explain.

I want you to imagine a row of dartboards. In the center of each dartboard is a genre. Horror (think The Shining). Action (think John Wick). Thriller (think North by Northwest). Adventure (think Indiana Jones). Sci-Fi (think Terminator). These “smack dab in the middle” representations of genre are anti-risk. They are so part and parcel with that gooey genre center that audiences don’t have to think twice about them. Assuming the core idea is solid, they will go and see that movie.

Once you move out from that center, you get into sub-genres. For example, with Horror, you will have teen slasher (Scream), horror comedy (Shaun of the Dead), sci-fi horror (Alien), arthouse horror (The Witch). The further out from that center you get, the more risk you’re taking. You may look at these movies I just mentioned and point out that they’re all very successful and therefore not risky. But that’s only because I’m using examples you’ve heard of before. There are hundreds of films in these sub-genres that failed because the risk didn’t pay off.

Now let’s look at a movie like The Long Walk. What genre does it exist in? It’s not straight horror, so it’s not in the center. It doesn’t exist in any of the sub-genres I mentioned. That means it’s even further out from center. You might say it’s post-apocalyptic horror. Except it doesn’t exist in the future. It exists in some 1970s alternate universe. Alternate universe period piece horror? We’ve just gone even further away from the center.

None of this is to critique the movie itself, which is getting great reviews. We’re talking about getting people into theaters. Which is the directive by which everyone in Hollywood operates. Which is why, if you write a project like The Long Walk, you’re taking a big risk. Because studios – and audiences – aren’t going to be able to place it into a box that’s easy to market.

Don’t even get me started on Life of Chuck and Eddington. I’m not sure those movies are extending out from any genre. At least the earlier sug-genres I mentioned have a sun to orbit around. These films are out in space all by themselves. And that’s how potential audiences see them. They see them as weird blurry entries which don’t exist in any identifiable form. So why risk going to the movies to see them?

One of the more captivating examples of risk I’ve encountered was Nobody 2. This was a great time at the theater. All it cared about was entertaining you. The only problem was that I seemed to be the only one who wanted to be entertained. Cause nobody – pun-intended – was there.

That’s because Nobody 2 was a risk that didn’t pay off. Believe it or not, the original draft had the family vacationing in Italy. They were going to do something not unlike The Equalizer sequels. But, at the last second, they turned it into a National Lampoon’s Vacation type film. Where does that sub-genre exist on the dartboard? A hitman action family film with comedic elements. Does a dartboard even have a section for that?

This is where being so deep in movie analysis gets me in trouble. To me, Nobody 2 was a fresh take. But to the average moviegoer, it was a step too far. They couldn’t identify what the movie was compared to what they knew from before.

So what am I saying? Never take a risk?

Of course you should take risks. The great thing about risk is that when a risky script pays off, it pays off big. Weapons is the perfect example. Weapons isn’t traditional horror. It’s not a ghost story, or a demon story, or a monster. It’s a missing persons mystery in the horror universe. And it’s not told in a traditional way. It’s told out of sequence via different points of view. This risk is exactly what made Weapons feel fresh and exciting, and audiences showed up because of it.

But here’s the more important reason for why you need to take risks – As an unknown screenwriter, you have a WAY better chance of standing out if you write something risky. It’s less likely that you will break out with a perfectly executed safe movie idea. Even if you write the next Night at the Museum and sell it, nobody will be excited about you as a writer. Hollywood is way more into risky writers, the people who write Get Out and Promising Young Woman.

I just watched this small indie movie called Sorry, Baby, about a young teacher trying to move on from a traumatic experience. It fell into its indie trappings a little too much for my taste. But for a movie I normally would’ve turned off after 20 minutes, I kept watching because at least the execution was risky. She tells her story out of order and it adds a certain level of suspense that wouldn’t have been there otherwise.

But still look for balance. You can’t be so risky that people don’t even understand what the movie is about (Life of Chuck) just as you can’t be so safe that people feel like they’ve already seen your movie before (Love Hurts). But embrace risk (both in concept and execution) wherever you can. Risk is the main tool that will make your script stand out.

Come one, come all, and vote for the best script!

I know it’s getting a little confusing around here with all these showdowns so let me bring you up to speed. Today’s post has nothing to do with the Blood & Ink Showdown.

A couple of months ago, we had a MEGA-SHOWDOWN. This was a general screenplay contest where I picked my favorite submitted scripts and put them up for a vote. You guys voted for your favorites, which then each had their own day, giving you an informed second vote for the top 4.  You picked Hard Labor as the winner, which I then reviewed. I would then go on to review all the finalists.

However, a lot of scripts just missed the Mega-Showdown cut so I thought it would be fun to do a showdown with the top 5 entries that didn’t make it. I have not read these scripts from cover to cover yet. So, there’s a chance that one of them might even be better than the winner, Hard Labor.

This weekend, we’re going to vote for your favorite. And then either on Monday or Tuesday, I will review the winning script.

If you’ve never done a showdown before, they’re easy. Read as much or as little of each entry as you want.  Then go to the comments and write in the title of your favorite entry. You can also share why you liked it, if you want to. These showdowns double as a way to educate screenwriters and help writers understand how audiences are receiving their material.

I was originally going to do two of these showdowns (a ‘third wave’ next weekend). But I realized that my logline bar has risen so high since the Blood & Ink pitches that a lot of these other entries just weren’t good enough.

You have until 11:59pm Pacific Time on Sunday to vote. So, let’s get started!

Title: Departure Gate
Genre: Thriller
Logline: A hitman who lives entirely on airplanes falls in love with a fellow passenger, but in the ‘outside world’ he risks capture by the relentless DEA Agent pursuing him.

Title: Breakaway
Genre: Action/Thriller
Logline: A disgraced Tour de France champion must deliver a package across a riot-torn city in two hours, or a young hostage dies.

Title: KINDLE
Genre: Thriller / Contained Thriller
Logline: Trapped in a shed as a bushfire approaches, a man suspects he didn’t end up there by accident.

Title: Starcrossed
Genre: Thriller/Dark Comedy
Logline: A long-suffering sous chef seeks revenge after a chauvinistic food critic’s zero-star review destroys her debut restaurant – and everything is on the menu.

Title: ENEMY
Genre: Action-Adventure
Logline: After one of their own murders a Comanche boy, a skirmish leaves a small group of Spanish cavalrymen stranded without horses deep in hostile territory, facing the dangers posed by vengeful warriors, nature and each other.