Genre: Sci-fi
Premise: (from IMDB) In 2039 Detroit, when Alex Murphy – a loving husband, father and good cop – is critically injured in the line of duty, the multinational conglomerate OmniCorp sees their chance for a part-man, part-robot police officer.
About: This draft of Robocop was written by Joshua Zetumer. Zetumer sold his first script, Villain, to 2929 studios a few years ago. Although he started out writing big sprawling action films, Villain was the script that got him noticed, secured him an agent, and ultimately landed him a sale. The script impressed director Marc Forster enough that he asked Zetumer to rewrite Quantum of Solace. In fact, the script led to a whole host of large scale assignments, including the Leonardo DiCaprio project, The Infiltrator, and the remake of Dune. Zetumer cites Chinatown as the biggest influence on his work. Despite all the work Zetumer’s been doing since the Villain sale, Robocop will be his first feature credit, a strange byproduct of the Hollywood screenwriting system (when are they going to add an “employed writers” credit? They give a credit to the guy who cleans the director’s car for God’s sake). The director of Robocop, Jose Padilha, first broke on the scene with his chilling documentary, Bus 174, about a drug-crazed madman’s takeover of a Rio de Janeiro bus.
Writers: Joshua Zetumer (revisions by Nick Schenk)
Details: 126 pages – January 20th, 2012 draft (this is an earlier draft of the script and does not reflect the final film)

Like many people who saw the original Robocop as a child, my view of movies was forever changed. Okay, well, maybe it didn’t have THAT big of an effect on me, but it was a really cool movie. I mean, what kid didn’t want to be Robocop after seeing that suit? And then, of course, there was the violence. You see, back in the day we didn’t have “warnings” and parental movie-watchdog sites that told parents every little potential thing that could psychologically damage your child for the rest of his life. You just showed up at the movie and whatever you saw, you saw. So no one knew their kids would be watching a gang of criminals heartlessly tearing our hero to shreds for what seemed like ten minutes onscreen. By the time that showed up, it was too late to turn back.

Revisiting the film a few years ago, though, it was notably a lot cheesier than I remembered it. It was still good, don’t get me wrong. But with violence no longer being at the top of my “why I enjoy movies” list, I found the movie a little less engaging.

Now what this means for a remake, I don’t know. Usually when something’s being remade, you have a strong opinion on it. What! They’re remaking Psycho! F*ck that! Or: Oh hell no! They’re redoing The Wicker Man! That’s a classic! I hate you, world! — With Robocop, though, I don’t really feel anything. On the one hand, it makes sense to remake it. A robot cop kicking the asses of all the bad guys can still be a cool film. On the other, I don’t know if today’s audience cares. I’m reminded of the recent Total Recall remake, which had way better special effects and production value than the original, but ultimately felt like a vapid film. And I think it’s because Total Recall’s success was a product of its time, something I’m afraid may also be the case with Robocop. And these trailers of the film aren’t helping. They’re not bad. But to stand out from the pack with an effects-driven concept film, you gotta be better than “not bad.”

It’s the year 2039 and Officer Alex Murphy is Detroit’s top cop. But he’s fighting a battle he can’t win. Crime has gotten so bad in the city, most of the cops have given up and joined the bad guys. The worst bad guy of them all is Antoine Vallon, a crime lord who’s got most of Detroit in the palm of his hand, and it’s only a matter of time before he has the rest.

Meanwhile, a corporation named Omnicorp is the fastest rising company in the world. Their products are robotic drones that go into places like Iran and clear them out so that the U.S. army doesn’t have to. We can now fight wars without losing a single soldier. Pretty sweet. Omnicorp wants to use these drones as policemen in the U.S. but the U.S. is too litigious. If a robot-drone accidentally kills one person, Omnicorp will be sued up the ying-yang.

So someone in the company comes up with a nifty idea to FUSE a robot-drone with a person. This way, it’s still the person making the decisions. Bye-bye lawsuit. Now they just need their first volunteer. Except who’s going to volunteer to become half-robot? Well, turns out the decision’s made for our poor Alex Murphy, as Antoine shoots him up until he’s basically a stump.

Since becoming a robot-cop is the only way he’ll live, Alex’s wife agrees to the procedure, and we get Robocop! Unlike the original Robocop, however, he doesn’t go right to the streets. He trains in places like China and Iran. Why? Ya got me! A few years later, he comes back to Detroit and begins his career as the first Robocop. Things go well at first until Alex starts yearning to be with his family again, which results in a very personal journey that ends with him finding out the shocking truth about his transformation.

Vintage Robocop!

Robocop is obviously trying to make a statement about the world – about drones in particular. It’s a hot-button topic so I applaud Padilha for wanting to take it on in a Hollywood film. The thing is, it doesn’t fit. This is Robocop. We’re supposed to be in Detroit watching him kick ass, Robocop-style. So every time we’re in another country taking on terrorists or training, I’m sitting there going, “Uh, what’s going on right now?” I mean, yes, it does mirror the drone debate. We use drones in other countries and the next question is, will we use them here? But again, just from a pure story standpoint, I was confused as to why we were spending so much time away from Detroit. I mean, Robocop doesn’t start fighting crime until page 70!  Not only was that late, but it meant the real story here (cleaning up Detroit) didn’t get started until page 80!  Might explain why the script is 126 pages.

That leads to another plot point, the legalese of it all. In the script, a TON of attention is given to this idea that they can’t build a drone in the U.S. because of the legal implications of it killing someone. So someone comes up with the idea of fusing a drone with a person. That way the person still makes a mistake and they’re free of liability. The problem is, the reasoning is really flimsy and I mean, come on — you think just because a person’s in that suit that Omnicorp isn’t getting sued to the nines if it kills someone? Of course they are. Sometimes, as writers, we want something to work so badly that we over-explain it in hopes that the reader will eventually buy in. But if the idea is flawed from the get-go, it’s not going to work. And it didn’t work here.

A lot of you are probably wondering what the difference is between old Robocop and new Robocop. Well, Robocop goes through 4 stages as he trains over a few years (Robocop 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0). So he’s got a lot of different looks. He also has a ‘social’ and ‘swat’ mode. Social mode looks nice and cuddly for the general public. But when he switches into swat mode, his suit darkens and he looks more like a badass motherf*cker. You’re also going to get a Robocop who can run as fast as a car and that has his own Robobike, which he can “fuse” into. Oh, and Robocop can dodge bullets!

I think I heard that the new Robocop is rated PG-13, which would make sense because they DON’T SHOW the big scene where Alex Murphy is shot up, deciding instead to skip over it. I was a little disappointed by this because THAT was the scene that made us care about Robocop so much.  Anything you can do to create sympathy for our hero and hate for our bad guy is going to make us root for our protagonist more.  So I’m not sure getting rid of the scene (which I’m thinking was done for PG-13 reasons) was a good idea.  However, that scene’s absence does come back to the story in an interesting way, so I’ll give Zetumer and Padhila that.

Oh, and if they keep the ending of the script, a veritable war in the Detroit streets, and they execute it right, that right there might be worth the price of admission. While a lot of Robocop was by-the-numbers, the final climax showed so much promise. It’s Robocop versus those huge AT-AT Walker things from the original Robocop. I’ll buy that for a dollar.

But yeah, while I admire this script for being ambitious and tackling a big debate (drones), I think that actually hurt the script. You guys know I like focus in my movies, and the international stuff always seemed to unfocus the script. We were all over the place. I mean at one point Robocop is fighting Al-Queda in the Middle East. What?? I don’t know if Padhila could’ve explored the drone stuff by only staying in Detroit. But it would’ve made for a better more focused film in my opinion. Still, Zetumer does a decent job with what he’s asked to do, and since Justin Bieber is executed in this script (yes, you read that right – well sort of anyway), that’s going to tip the scales to a “worth the read.” Sorry Biebs.

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

What I learned: Action-ize boring scenes. There are certain perfunctory scenes in your script that you must write. They’re required by the story. But don’t think they have to stay perfunctory. Look for ways to throw a wrench into the scene, a surprise if you will, that’ll force your hero to act. In other words, action-ize the scene. In the middle of the script, Robocop needs to be introduced to Detroit by the mayor. This is potentially a straight-forward scene. The mayor introduces Robocop. Long boring speech. A reaction from the audience. Scene over. Instead, however, Zetumer introduces a criminal in the audience. Robocop immediately switches to SWAT MODE and must take the criminal down. In other words, don’t be afraid to break open traditionally boring scenes and turn them into something exciting.

Genre: Romantic Comedy-Drama
Premise: A young, cocky New Jersey man obsessed with porn finds his obsession challenged when he meets a girl who tells him it’s either porn or her.
About: As many of you know, this is long-time actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises) first foray into writing and directing. The film played strongly at Sundance, inspiring a bidding war which Relativity ultimately won, under the condition that it be released wide (over 2000 theaters). Now for those of you who don’t know the distribution business, this is a big deal. Rarely does a film that doesn’t have huge stars or a big budget get a wide release. Typically, as an indie, you start out small, anywhere from 15-200 theaters, and then if you do well, you keep expanding. So for them to bust this tiny film out into 2400 theaters was a huge risk. Now while it didn’t light the box office on fire, it did almost beat the much more heavily marketed Rush (9m to 11m), which had 15 times the production budget and twice the advertising budget. It’s a non-traditional “romantic-comedy” so it’ll be interesting to see where it goes but movie folks seem to like it, especially critics, who gave it an 81% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Writer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Details: 90 minute running time

First of all, I want to talk about the box office this week. I’m not sure what Ron Howard is doing anymore. He’s pigeonholed himself into these safe, fluffy movies that leave so little of an impression, you don’t even have a reaction when you see the posters or trailers anymore. Rush (the car-racing movie he made) just looked so bland. Same with Angels and Demons and The Dilemma. I think these kinds of films did better in the 80s and 90s. These days, you need more edge to your film. You can’t spend 50 million on a movie, have 50 million to advertise it, and almost lose to an indie film. You just can’t. You have to reevaluate what you’re doing and learn to change with the times. I’m sure Howard said, “Fast and Furious’s success shows that people want to watch car racing movies,” which is how he got this made. But the reason that series has done so well is because it has attitude. It’s in your face. It’s flashy. Rush looks like something you catch on cable at 2pm on a Sunday during which you then take a nap. I’m baffled that he thought anyone would want to see this movie.

What does any of this have to do with Don Jon? Not much. However, I have to admit, I thought this movie would do a lot worse. I didn’t like its advertising campaign either. It was just so one-note and non-believable. Basing your story on a woman who’s shocked that her boyfriend watches porn? What year are we in? 2002? I just didn’t see the depth there. But that’s what happens with these marketing approaches sometimes. They believe so little in the audience, they distill their stories down to the most basic of elements. I.E. “Guy with porn problem. Girl no like it.” In actuality, this movie is a lot more complex, a rich character study, and way more unpredictable than your average “romantic comedy.”

Don Jon is about a young New Jersey ladies man, not too far removed from the guys you’d see on Jersey Shore, who lives a very structured lifestyle. He cleans his pad, rides around in his car, goes out with his boys, goes home with a girl… and he watches porn.

You see, even though Don can have any girl he wants, the girls he really wants are made of pixels and frame-rates. Don will masturbate to porn anywhere from 3-5 times a day, many of those times right after he’s taken a girl home who could’ve had her own Maxim spread. Clearly, Don has some issues with intimacy and connection, and that’s not changing any time soon.

Enter Barbara (Scarlett Johansen). This girl is hoootttt. The two start dating, but after she catches Don watching porn, she tells him that if that ever happens again, she’s gone. So now Don has the choice of all choices to make. Does he give up porn for a girl? Naturally, because Don’s a guy, he decides not to make a decision, but rather have both. He’ll be with Barbara and continue to watch porn (or “porno” as she calls it) in secret.

Meanwhile, while taking classes at a local community college, Don gets approached by Esther, a “MILF” as the kids like to say, who’s clearly going through some real-life shit of her own, the kind of shit so bad that she’ll spontaneously cry in public. Esther makes it clear she just wants some young no-strings-attached man-meat, but she is so far off Don’s radar that he won’t even give her the time of day.

However, Don’s own life begins to spiral out of control when Barbara finds out he’s been lying to her and still watches “porno.” So the best girl Don’s ever snagged is all of a sudden out of his life, which Don’s pretty torn up about. Meanwhile, as Esther continues to pester him, he lets her in, and she teaches him the potential of what a real relationship can be if you he can just look past the surface.

Okay, a couple of things I want to commend Don Jon for right off the bat. First, it’s edgy. Tackling a hardcore porn addiction in a romantic comedy has a little more punch to it than say, the lure of soccer moms (recent romantic comedy “Playing for Keeps”). So it’s nice to see a romantic comedy taking a chance.

Second, I LOVED how it didn’t go according to plan. (Spoiler) I mean who’s going into a Scarlett Johansson romantic comedy and not thinking that our leading man and her aren’t going to end up together? Yet they don’t. Don ends up with Esther, which came completely out of left field for me. And I can count the amount of times I’ve been shocked by a romantic comedy ending on one hand. So that was cool.

Which brings us to the actual structure of the screenplay. Now remember, when you have a romantic comedy, story isn’t as important. There isn’t a whole lot of story in When Harry Met Sally. If you can create enough conflict between the characters, and the audience likes a) the lead, b) the girl, and c) is interested in whether they’ll end up together, then you’ve done your job. But you still have to provide some structure to it all, and I thought Don Jon did that in an interesting way.

We start by introducing Don’s addiction. This is the main character’s “problem.” Then, we introduce Barbara, the element that will CHALLENGE that problem. This leads us into the courting stage. Remember, as long as your character is pursuing something, trying to achieve something, the reader should remain engaged. And here, of course, Don is courting Barbara, trying to get into Barbara’s pants (sex is the goal). So we want to see if that’s going to happen.

Where Don Jon gets interesting is when Don finally does get laid. Technically, there’s nothing left for the reader to really “look forward to” at this point. Don is satisfied. He got what he wanted. What’s left to care about? Well, whether Joseph Gordon-Levitt did it on purpose or not, he cleverly switches the objective over to Barbara. It’s Barbara who now wants something, to start controlling Don. She wants him to take classes so he can get a better job. She wants him to get a cleaning lady so he’s not doing manual labor anymore. And she, of course, doesn’t want him watching porn. Barbara is driving the story.

As Don begins to get frustrated with this control, we get the sense that this is all going to blow up at some point, and that’s why we keep watching. In other words, nothing in the movie ever gets too settled. There are always things grinding against and working to unfurl the relationship. That conflict is what provides the entertainment.

Another really smart decision was bringing in this class and the Esther character. I usually don’t advocate bringing in brand new characters this late in a script, but Esther is so persistent, so intriguing, that we’re wondering where her inclusion’s going to go, especially because it isn’t your run-of-the-mill temptation situation where a young smokin’ lady lures our male protagonist into the bedroom. Esther is older and unattractive to Don, which adds an extra element of mystery to the ordeal. We really have no idea how that’s going to end up.

That relationship then takes us to the end of the movie, where again, Gordon-Levitt made a smart choice. He kept the script short. Only 90 pages (if it’s the same as the running time). So we don’t linger around on anything too long here. We move quickly from one section to the next and therefore no time is wasted. I read three scripts this week that each could’ve cut 30 pages because the writers were writing all these extra unnecessary scenes that only peripherally added to the story. Gordon-Levitt did the opposite. He only included what was necessary and not a single scene more.

I know I talk a lot about rules on this site. But I also say that the rules you break are what make your script different from everything else and therefore, you should always try to break a few when writing. It doesn’t always turn out well (and can easily veer into disaster-territory) but when you do it right, you come up with a movie like Don Jon, one of the best movies I’ve seen this year.

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

What I learned: Except for special circumstances, never let things get too happy in your main romantic relationship. There should always be an element working to unseat the relationship. If it’s not your lead, it should be the romantic interest. If it’s not the lead or the romantic interest, it should be something outside the relationship. The second a relationship becomes perfect, is the second it becomes boring.

What I learned #2: Miss Scriptshadow told me this would be a good movie and I didn’t believe her, so this is a public apology for thinking she could possibly be wrong. Miss Scriptshadow, like all other women, is never wrong. I will buy her Starbucks to make up for my heinous gaffe.

Genre: Drama
Premise: (from IMDB) The true story of Captain Richard Phillips and the 2009 hijacking by Somali pirates of the US-flagged MV Maersk Alabama, the first American cargo ship to be hijacked in two hundred years.
About: The original script title for Captain Phillips was “Maersk Alabama,” a title I’m not surprised they changed. As you read above, it’s based on a true story. Tom Hanks is starring in what surely the studio hopes will be an Oscar-nominated role. The script was written by Hollywood A-list screenwriter Billy Ray, who’s one of the ten guys in town who basically rewrites everything before it’s put in front of the lens. He makes ridiculous amounts of money for this. He’s probably best known for The Hunger Games. And he’s taking charge of the hopefully Brendan-Frasier-less Mummy Reboot. Paul Greengrass (most of the Bourne movies) is directing. The movie hits theaters October 11th.
Writer: Billy Ray (based on the book by Richard Philips)
Details: 120 pages – December 9, 2010 draft (first draft revised)

I’m going to put this politely. There’s something about Captain Phillips that feels kind of… boring. I remember when the whole Somali pirate thing swept the world and this particular story came out and I thought to myself, “They’re going to make a movie about this.” And then I thought, “But why?” I mean, there’s definitely a dramatic element to a crew being held hostage, but the concept is missing that “Gotta go out and see this in the theater now” element that a feature needs to make money.

The weird thing is that this is the reality in Hollywood. Studios are so desperate for product that if ANY major story hits the news, they HAVE to snatch it up and make a movie about it. Who cares if they can’t find a way to actually make it good. The fact that people have heard about it means much of the advertising for their film has already been done.

Take the Chilean miner ordeal. They’re making a movie about that. But why??? A group of 30 Chilean miners are trapped together in a small room. How do you make that interesting for 100 minutes? Especially when the miners are told right away that they’ll be fine! That they’re all going to be rescued! Where’s the suspense in that?? The only way that movie’s going to work is if they find a compelling storyline outside of the mine. And if they do that, what’s the point of having the mine anyway?

But back to Captain Phillips. I so want to be proven wrong here. But this movie looks like a slog. Miss SS said to me, “That looks like a movie you go to if you want to be depressed for the rest of your life,” and I’m not sure I’d disagree with her. But let me remind all you writers why readers desperately want your script to be good. Because it’s sooooooo much easier to read a good script than a bad one. Which is why I’m so hoping I’m wrong and this is good. Let’s check it out…

50 year old Richard Phillips is your typical family man…. who goes off for weeks at a time to sail across the Atlantic. The guy is a lot stubborn, and outside of his wife, people don’t like him for it. In fact, his crew for the Maersk Alabama, a cargo ship delivering food to Africa, thinks he’s annoying as hell.

Which is strange because the main reason he’s being so annoying is to prepare his ship for a possible pirate takeover. If they don’t have a procedure for this, they’re fucked. And with boats getting boarded every day (50 last week!), it’s probably a good idea to be prepared.

Anyway, as they approach their destination, what do you know, they get boarded by a group of pirates. There’s the youngest, Bilal, then Elmi, then Najee, and then the leader, Musi, a smart determined pirate who speaks English (you have to learn to speak English as a pirate because, “No ship speaks Somali”).

Musi wants one thing: money. And while the other boats have it, this boat is American. So he expects A LOT of money. Problem is, Phillips has locked most of his crew in a secret location somewhere on the ship. Musi wants the whole crew so a game of “Where’s the crew” begins, with Phillips slyly misleading Musi at every turn.

Eventually, Phillips convinces the pirates that if they leave his crew alone, they can have his lifeboat. They agree to this but want Phillips as well. They’re not leaving without their big payday. So the pirates and Phillips get into this little boat, and within hours, are greeted by a giant U.S. Navy ship. For some reason, this makes the pirates happy. They think their money is coming.

But they really have zero idea who they’re dealing with. The Navy tells them, there’s no way you’re getting back home, and proceed to trip Musi up with a multitude of negotiating tactics. The confusion ramps up their anger towards Phillips, who somehow stays calm throughout all this. Eventually, Musi surrenders, coming aboard the Navy ship, and his crew is sniped by some badass Navy snipers. Game over. Insert new coin.

So, did the script save this ship?

No.

You know what though? This started off good. I admire Billy Ray for finding some bit of life in this sinking vessel. The anticipation and suspense drawn out by the first 30 pages of these pirates coming (they even call the ship radio at one point and say, “We’re coming to get you,”) had me a lot more invested in this than I thought I’d be.

The combination of that and the anger you have towards these billion dollar companies run by men in posh suits sitting in the safety of their giant Manhattan offices for giving these boat employees ZERO defenses against these pirates (no guns, no weapons at all) gets you all charged up.

But then the pirates get on the ship and things start getting boring quickly. The problem is that Musi becomes obsessed with finding the crew and that becomes a 25 page chunk of the story. Here’s the problem with that though. Whenever you have a character going after something in a script, whether it be your hero or your villain, there must be stakes attached to it or the audience won’t care.

What are the stakes of Musi not finding the crew? What are the consequences? As far as I can tell, nothing. He already has the Captain. Doesn’t he have the big bargaining chip then? Yet page after page is dedicated to finding these other guys and I just couldn’t figure out why that was so important. That’s not to say there wasn’t a reason. It’s to say that we were never informed what it was! So we didn’t know why this was so important.

Another problem was that Captain Phillips appeared to be this grating guy that nobody liked. His son hates him. No one on his crew likes him. They actually constantly make fun of him behind his back. And because everyone thought he was a loser, I began to think he was a loser. I still wanted him to be saved. But the impression I got was that he was one of those annoying people in life that everyone just deals with. Not exactly Bruce Willis in Die Hard.

Then there’s the villain, Musi. Ray makes the choice to show his home life (he’s got a family too) just like Captain Phillips’s. We hear his sob story, that he used to be a fisherman before other countries overfished the Somali waters, leaving him with no way to make a living. He does this pirate thing to survive, for himself and his family.

In other words, the villain is gray. I go back and forth on this all the time. Should we get to know the circumstances behind why the villain’s life is so terrible? On the one hand, it fleshes out the character and makes him more real. On the other, we’re less interested in seeing him go down. I mean, do we cut back to Buffalo Bill’s childhood where his father used to beat him in Silence of the Lambs? No, because that would provide sympathy for the character and the writer doesn’t want you to like his villain. He’s the villain. He’s meant to be hated in that scenario. I guess I just had too much of a reason to sympathize with Musi and therefore wasn’t as in to him getting beaten. This made me even more blasé about the story.

Here’s the thing with Captain Phillips. It’s a well-executed script. I was telling Miss SS that the difference is so clear when I pick up a professional script, like this one, compared to the amateur scripts I read. Ray knows how to build suspenseful moments, how to keep the story moving, how to create memorable characters, and how to write in a concise and readable fashion.

But you can only do so much for an idea that was probably meant to stay in the headlines and never become a movie. This is straightforward “take us seriously” Hollywood entertainment here. You have a hero. You have bad guys. You have an international crisis with a lot of blurred lines. Ray somehow makes us want to get to the finish line, but once we catch our breath, we’re ready to forget this race and move on to the next one.

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

What I learned: I was in the bookstore the other day and picked up a book. On the back of it, a critic was quoted as saying, “This is the kind of book you want to read instead of the kind of book you feel like you should read.” That stuck with me. Because I look at a movie like Captain Phillips and I think, “That’s the kind of movie I feel like I should see.” It isn’t the kind of movie I want to see. Because the movie business is about entertainment, I believe that when you set out to write something, it should be the kind of movie that people will want to see. If you’re writing something that people “should see,” you’re probably writing something boring.

This is your chance to discuss the week’s amateur scripts, offered originally in the Scriptshadow newsletter. The primary goal for this discussion is to find out which script(s) is the best candidate for a future Amateur Friday review. The secondary goal is to keep things positive in the comments with constructive criticism.

Below are the scripts up for review, along with the download links. Want to receive the scripts early? Head over to the Contact page, e-mail us, and “Opt In” to the newsletter.

Happy reading!

TITLE: Abaddon
GENRE: Horror, sci-fi
LOGLINE: A team of marines and scientists board a spaceship, only to discover its crew have transformed into raging cannibals.
WHY YOU SHOULD READ (from writer): “After countless attempts to write a epic fiction (trying to run before learning to walk), I’ve learned about my strengths (plot-mapping, dialogue) and weaknesses (flowery language, vivid descriptions). So began my love of script writing. My first (polished) script, ‘Abaddon’ blends originality with familiarity. It contains the conventions of good horror, complete with twists, turns, and interesting/flawed characters trying to survive aboard a spaceship swarming with zombie-like savages. I appreciate any constructive criticism the SS community of passionate readers and writers can provide. Thank you.”

TITLE: DEADMEN
GENRE: Black Comedy Western/Thriller
LOGLINE: A beautiful woman persuades a washed up gunslinger in the West to commit suicide, and he does just that.
WHY YOU SHOULD READ (from writer): “I placed 2nd in this years Script Pipeline competition. This script has been developed since 2010, when the 1st draft was a semifinalist in the Austin Film Screenplay Competition.

What if Louie CK and Tarantino got together to do a Western…? That’s what Deadmen is.”

TITLE: SWAP
GENRE: Sci-Fi/Thriller.
LOGLINE: When a homicide detective learns that the murderer of a Senator was the victim of a high-tech setup, he then uncovers a conspiracy that makes him question everything he believes in, even himself.
WHY YOU SHOULD READ (from writer): “In 2003 I had a “concept” for a Sci-Fi movie but had never written a screenplay. My wife saw a news piece for a screenplay community on the Internet, where you could upload your work and get constructive reviews and help. I read the first ten pages of the “Terminator” to get an idea of formatting. Using Word templates and a few reference books, I knocked out the first draft of in a week. The formatting was terrible and the story was littered with mistakes. But I pushed on and learned/developed the craft though constructive feedback and hard work.

My ideas were always a little high concept (and budget) so I began to get interested in short scripts and independent film, to both learn and give me a chance at getting produced. 10 years later I’ve just started a draft of my 19th feature script and finished short script 120. So I guess it’s fair to say I’ve been bitten by the bug of screenwriting. I’ve had short films screened in Cannes, won and placed in contests (thrilled that Kenneth Branagh read and selected one of my scripts). But am I any closer to breaking into the business? Hell no! But I’m enjoying the journey and learning as I go.”

TITLE: STORM DRAGONS
GENRE: Epic Fantasy-Action/Adventure (in the vein of Game of Thrones, 300 and Gladiator)
LOGLINE: “In a mystical land where champions fight to the death to keep the peace, the revenge of a chosen warrior against the killer of his family risks starting the all out war he lives to prevent”
WHY YOU SHOULD READ (from writer): “With the growing general audience interest in the fantasy genre, specifically in adult epic stories like Game of Thrones (including yourself, right?), and after making the finals in 10 different screenplay contests, I believe that my script is ready to face your wisdom and get the answer to its main quest: Could it become the Game of Thrones of the Big Screen?”

TITLE: Blood Mountain
GENRE: Horror/Dark Comedy
LOGLINE: A group of friends filming a homemade comic book movie seek revenge on the bloodthirsty band of European vampires who murdered one of their actors.
WHY YOU SHOULD READ (from writer): “My script has GSU, an inciting incident, and something that ups the stakes as the story moves along, just like the SS articles emphasize. But just because I have that checklist, it doesn’t mean a thing until it is scrutinized by the best amateur writing community on the web. I’ve read quite a few Amateur offerings screenplays the last few months, and I haven’t rushed this along before it’s ready, like some others I’ve read. This is no first draft. The only question is, and it’s the one question I can’t answer but hopefully Scriptshadow can, is it ready for the big time?”

Note: If you are a French screenwriter and want to prove that your script is so much better than the kind of films France is making, send it to me at carsonreeves3@gmail.com.  I’ll review whatever query best catches my interest.  Include the title, logline, and script attachment!

Genre: Dramedy (foreign)
Premise: (from IMDB) After he becomes a quadriplegic from a paragliding accident, an aristocrat hires a young man from the projects to be his caretaker.
About: The Intouchables became the highest grossing non-English-speaking movie in France’s history, taking in 166 million dollars. But what’s really surprising is how well it did internationally, taking in 281 million dollars, unheard of for a French film. The film won many awards, including the Cesar for co-lead Omar Cy. In short, it’s the best film to come out of France in years.  The film is available for free on Netflix streaming right now!
Writer: Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano
Details: 112 minutes

Bon Appetit!

Oui, you read that right. It’s FRENCH WEEK. I’ve been so inspired by the Musee D’Orsay, the Tour D’eiffel, the Metro, the patisseries, the boulangeries, the pan au chocolates, that I couldn’t NOT do a French week. I mean take a stroll through Montmartre (where Amelie was filmed) and tell me you wouldn’t trade your eldest son to live there for just one day.

Also, while in France, I learned a lot about the French movie industry and why they make such crappy movies. I’m going to save those discoveries for Thursday but let’s just say it’s a LOT easier now to understand why French movies are so terribaux.

Which makes the success of today’s movie all the more confusing. The Intouchables was that rare French film that got it right. Despite seemingly taking the same approach as most other French films (a fairly plot-less drama focusing on the lives of people with the occasional touch of comedy). For that reason, I had to look closer. What made this film break out of a formula that, according to most moviegoers, doesn’t work? Because I’ll be honest, I haven’t been the biggest French film fan. But this one was good. And I believe it comes down to the script (doesn’t it always!). It may behoove the French to take a better look at this script, then, to understand why The Intouchables found so much success.

For those who haven’t seen it, The Intouchables is about a very rich Frenchman, Philippe, who was paralyzed after a hang-gliding accident. Years later, he lives in his beautiful mansion, bound to a wheelchair as a paraplegic, millions of dollars in his bank account, yet not a single penny can give him what he wants most, to move again. To put it bluntly, Philippe’s life is at a standstill.

To make matters worse, everyone who does come in contact with Philippe (his business associates, his lawyer) treat him with pity. And there’s nothing Philippe hates more than pity. Enter Driss, a blunt African immigrant who’s applying for a job as Phillipe’s caretaker. The funny thing is, Driss doesn’t want the job. He just wants his application signed so he can claim that he APPLIED for the job, which will allow him to keep collecting welfare.

Of course, Driss’s casual reaction to Philippe’s disability is exactly what Philippe’s been looking for! So Driss quickly finds himself hired. The two become friends almost immediately, with Driss not afraid to make fun of Philippe’s shortcomings. Driss teaches Philippe to not be so uptight all the time and Philippe teaches Driss about art and culture.

Eventually, Driss learns that Philippe has been exchanging letters with a woman he’s never met. The two have formed a close relationship, but she doesn’t know about Philippe’s disability. Driss encourages Philippe to send her a picture, which Philippe does, though he secretly sends one of himself before the accident. Eventually, the moment comes where the woman wants to meet, and Philippe will have to decide whether to take what he learned from Driss and show up or throw a shot at happiness away.

At first, it’s hard to determine why this movie works. From a traditional standpoint, it’s kind of strange. In these stories where there’s a central coupling, there’s almost always a clear conflict between that couple. For example, when you have a love story, the conflict might come from the two butting heads (The Proposal). Or if it’s a buddy comedy, the two might hate each other (The Other Guys). Here, Philippe and Driss become best friends almost immediately.

There is Driss’s initial reluctance to take on the job, but it ends quickly, and a couple of scenes later, the two are laughing it up. It took me awhile to figure out why I was enjoying the movie still, despite the lack of conflict, and I realized it’s because we tend to enjoy watching friendships develop, especially friendships where the two parties would normally never interact with one another. I know it sounds silly, but darn it if it doesn’t make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

But what sets this script apart from all those other French films is that it adds structure to its story. A plot thread emerges that gives the story focus. That thread is, of course, the woman Philippe writes letters to. Now that Philippe has a GOAL (the eventual meeting with this girl) and that goal has STAKES attached to it (he’s fallen in love with her, tied all his future hope to her), we have something to look forward to. If not for that, we would’ve been stuck watching a couple of guys laughing for two hours. That would’ve eventually gotten boring, no matter how much we liked the two of them.

I recently watched a French movie on Netflix, for example, called Russian Dolls, that was one of the worst movies I’ve seen all year. And, not surprisingly, it had all the French trappings embedded in its fiber. We watched multiple people simply “experiencing life” in France. There was no rhyme or reason to who we cut to or why. There was a main character, but it was never clear what he was doing. He may have been writing a book, but why and for what purpose, I don’t know. That film failed, in my opinion, because it didn’t have that structure, it didn’t have that overriding central plot thread that the audience looked forward to.

I come back to it again and again on the site, but that’s because it works. Give your character a GOAL and the reader starts caring. Even if you’re writing a drama centered around “characters experiencing life” that doesn’t involve the mafia, or bank robberies, or robots. Give you main character something he’s going after. It’ll pull what are otherwise a bunch of drifting characters into a plot orbit.

Part of the problem here – and this seems to be very much a French problem – is that the French writers and directors (who are often the same person, which is part of the problem) believe that if they just explore life’s randomness, that their movies will be entertaining because they’ll be “lifelike” and “real.” Nothing could be further from the truth. If we don’t feel like we’re pushing towards something, if we don’t believe that all of this has a purpose, we lose interest. If we wanted “real life” we wouldn’t be at the movies, would we? We can get real life from…err… REAL LIFE! Movies are “exceptional life.”

Another reason the script works is because there’s a fascinating irony at the heart of the main character. Here is a man who “has” everything (all this money!). And yet he can’t enjoy any of it. For whatever reason, audiences love watching that. This movie doesn’t work, for example, if Philippe is poor. It’s only because he’s rich that we’re captivated. This is why it’s important to really think about your main character before you write your script. Is there something fascinating about him/her? Are you getting everything you possibly can out of his character? If not, rethink the character.

The Intouchables proves that whatever kind of script you write, a summer blockbuster or a character-driven drama, at the heart of your story should be some sort of objective to tie all the loose strands together. A lot of these French films would be better served by following this simple advice!

[ ] what the hell did I just watch?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[xx] worth watching
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Add an Element of Danger – You can enrich your story by adding an element of danger to one of your characters, the possibility that they might do something or are capable of something bad. Here, Driss has a criminal record, which Philippe’s lawyer points out to him. This choice lines the story with an impending payoff of this danger, something that because we’re told to anticipate, we pay more attention. In other words, it’s yet another subtle trick to keep a reader focused.

What I learned 2: Beware the car crash backstory! – Beware giving any character who was in an accident in your script the “car crash backstory”. It’s the easiest and most obvious of all the accident backstories and therefore draws rolled eyes from experienced readers. Instead, go with an accident that more organically represents your character. Here, Philippe injured himself during a hang-gliding accident, very much a “rich man’s” leisurely activity. That’s the kind of backstory that feels organic and honest, so it’s no surprise that it adds even more to Philippe’s character.