I bristled all weekend long about whether to go to 28 Years Later. It wasn’t even the movie itself that had me reticent. It’s the Hollywood theatrical business model that’s the problem. These days, they don’t make things as easy as they could. It used to be that if I was on the fence about a movie, the barrier for entry was so low that I would always go. Nowadays, the barrier for entry is high, so whenever I’m on the fence, I usually *don’t* go.
The fact that a single ticket is 20 bucks. Then parking at the Grove is another 10 bucks. That makes me think hard about whether I want to see a film.
This means that any other negative thing will be the tipping point. And when I watched this trailer, it looked so dark. I’m okay with dark. Once you get insanely dark, though, that’s too much. The capper, however, was the reviews. I heard that this was a super depressing story. Dark and depressing is not my idea of a fun weekend activity.
Now, the movie ended up making 30 million dollars. Depending on who you talk to, that’s either decent or bad. But, I still think any non superhero movie that clears 30 mil on its opening weekend is a success. It cost 75 million to make. They’re going to make that back when it’s all said and done.
But the real success – and the big lesson for all of you aspiring screenwriters out there – is that the movie got made DESPITE BEING dark and depressing.
Why is that? I’ll tell you why. BECAUSE THE MOVIE EXISTS WITHIN A MARKETABLE GENRE – ZOMBIES. Too many writers write dark and depressing movies about real-world issues and act surprised when nobody wants to read their scripts. They come to me for a logline consult and they say, “Nobody wants to read this script, Carson. What’s up?” And I look at them and I say: Look at your concept! It’s about a disfigured woman who loses her job and decides to euthanize herself.
In one of the hardest businesses to break into, you cannot handicap yourself with a “tough sell” type of script. The good news is, you can still tell THE EXACT SAME WEIRD OR DEPRESSING OR OFFBEAT story you want to tell. You just have to do it within a marketable genre!
Want to tell a story about hospice? Write an apocalyptic horror movie like A Quiet Place: Day One. Want to tell a story about cancer? Write a teenage romantic comedy like The Fault in Our Stars. Want to write a movie about mental illness? Write a psychological thriller like Black Swan. Want to tell a story about the inevitable extinction of mankind? Write a sci-fi thriller like Children of Men.
We’re playing a game here, man. We writers want to write stuff that’s more thoughtful and rich. Hollywood wants us to write stuff that’s popular and makes them money. The game is to make them BELIEVE they’re getting what they want when we’re actually getting what we want.
I’m willing to bet Universal thought Get Out was some basic “meet the parents” contained thriller. That’s what allowed Jordan Peele to get his movie made. In actuality, he was trying to say a lot more about society. And that’s what smart writers do. Peele could’ve easily ditched the thriller aspect and focused on an intense weekend with a white family and the daughter’s black boyfriend. But it wouldn’t have existed in a genre that Hollywood could market. And Hollywood is right! Nobody would’ve wanted to see that movie!
***
Lately, I’ve been obsessed with the disparity between critics and audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes. I know some people think Rotten Tomatoes is a joke but I see Rotten Tomatoes as the primary checks and balances for Hollywood. You have to understand that, back in the day, Hollywood had ZERO incentive to make a good movie. They ONLY had to make a marketable one.
That’s because they had way more control over the narrative of a film than they do today. They could make you think a bad movie was great a full 3-4 weeks into its run!
Nowadays, at least, Hollywood is scared of that Rotten Tomatoes score and, as a result, they put a lot more effort into the script than they used to. They know they’ve got no shot at a successful movie if that score sucks. And, by the way, that score is almost exclusively evaluating the screenplay. Hollywood production levels are the best they’ve ever been. A movie’s failure is never about weak production value. It’s about the script. So at least now we have this thing that scares Hollywood into putting more effort into the script.
It’s not a perfect system. James Gunn recently came out and said that the main reason that Hollywood is struggling right now is because they make movies from scripts that aren’t ready. He’s built his whole DC universe on the promise that he won’t make that mistake himself. He’ll only make DC movies when the script is good and ready. As proof of that, he recently canceled a mystery DC project because the script sucked. And he’s allowing Matt Reeves to take as long as he wants to write The Batman 2.
But I have to wonder – who decides when a script is awesome? James Gunn?? So when he finishes one of his own scripts, does he go into a separate room and evaluate it and say, “Yup, it’s awesome!” Cause Gunn writes too fast to be good sometimes. So I don’t know how that’s going to work.
But the point is, when Hollywood was making movies like iRobot, it was way way way way way worse than it is now. They had ZERO incentive to make that movie good and everybody saw the result, as well as the results of all those other movies that didn’t have to worry about repercussions of being shitty either. I’m talking about The Day After Tomorrow, Catwoman, Kangaroo Jack, S.W.A.T., The Time Machine, Maid in Manhattan, and hundreds more.
So, if anything, we should be happy that Rotten Tomatoes exists, if only to strike enough fear into Hollywood to make them try harder.
Getting back to that score disparity, some of these disparities are shocking! 28 Years Later has a 90% critics score and a 65% audience score. That’s a humongous difference. And it’s another reason to think long and hard about how depressing you want your script to be. Audiences generally go to movies to be picked up, not pulled down. So, when you depress the hell out of them, they react in kind.
A good example of that would be Ballerina. It has a 76% critics score but a 93% audience score. Ballerina only wants to be fun. It wants to be a good time. Audiences appreciate that. Not in some ‘audiences are dumb’ way. But because you go to the movies to escape the dredges of life. You want to let go for two hours and have fun. Writers forget this. It’s why A Minecraft Movie is the number one movie of the year. It’s why Barbie made twice as much money as Oppenheimer.
Then you have shocking score pairings, like Thunderbolts getting an 88% critics score and a 93% audience score, yet the movie was a bomb. How does that work? And it’s in a marketable genre, too! Guessssss what? If you’re paying attention, you know the reason why. Thunderbolts was about depression.
On the one hand, that’s AWESOME for the writers. They were able to slyly slide tough subject matter into a Marvel film. That’s what I just told you to do if you want to be successful. But that’s just to get the movie made! The problem with injecting too much darkness into your Hollywood movie is that audiences don’t like too much darkness. They like just enough to add balance to the story. But they ultimately want to have fun. And Thunderbolts wasn’t fun enough.
This is why I think Superman will be a massive massive hit. It embodies that spirit of having a good time at the movies. Its tracking says it’ll make between 115-130 million on its opening weekend. I think it will go higher than that. Superman is going to be the big movie of the year. And I’m not even HESITATING at paying that 20 dollar ticket and that 10 dollar parking fee. That’s how I know everyone else is going to see it as well. :)
I am offering 2 HALF-OFF script consultations. The first two people to e-mail me get them. You don’t have to have the script ready but you do have to pay to secure the deal. E-mail me the subject line “JUNE BOOM” at carsonreeves1@gmail.com to grab one!
MEGA SHOWDOWN SCREENWRITING CONTEST IS COMING!
What: Mega Showdown
When: Friday, August 1
Deadline: Thursday, July 31, 10pm Pacific Time
Send me your: Script title, genre, logline, and a PDF of the script
Where: carsonreeves3@gmail.com
One of the things I love about Mega Showdown is that it forces me to focus on what truly makes a script good. I love you guys. I really do. And I want all of you to be successful. But I do have an ulterior motive when I give you advice for this contest. I want you to write the best scripts possible because it’s way more enjoyable for me to read those submissions than the terrible ones.
The problem is, not enough writers take what I teach to heart. I’m trying to teach you INSANELY IMPORTANT lessons about screenwriting that you can’t ignore if you want to write something good. And yet writers continue to put their heads in the sand and ignore the most basic (yet effective) advice.
That got me thinking. What can I tell you today that will massively upgrade your screenplays? I’m talking about getting them 50% better. 200% better. Even 500% better! And I came up with five game-changing things that will make your script so much better than the average screenplay.
Let’s go over them.
The more passionate you are about your story, the better – I hate this tip whenever I see it somewhere else because I don’t like screenwriting tips that aren’t actionable. “Be passionate” is a tip that someone who knows nothing about screenwriting could give and, therefore, it’s a bad tip.
However! — Stay with me — let me explain why I included it here. What I’ve found is that when a writer is very passionate about their material, they always go the extra mile. If their protagonist isn’t perfect, they’ll keep working on him until he is. If an important scene is clocking in at a 6 out of 10, they’ll keep rewriting it until it’s a 9 out of 10.
Conversely, when writers write scripts they THINK the industry wants, rather than stuff they’re passionate about, they never put in as much effort. And the stuff that makes a script go from good to great is the effort. And the only people I see caring about that extra effort are the writers who are passionate about their script.
Take the directors of Final Destination: Bloodlines. These dudes were OBSESSED with the Final Destination franchise. You could’ve spent a decade interviewing directors for the job and not found anyone even close to how passionate these two were.
Do you know the first thing they did before writing the script? They watched all seven movies in the franchise and RANKED EVERY KILL from best to worst. They then marked where they felt the kills dipped below an acceptable quality and made sure that every kill they came up with for their movie stayed above that level. That’s only something passionate people do.
Another example is Oppenheimer. Let’s be real with each other here. Who the hell cares about Julius Robert Oppenheimer? STOP IT! Stop thinking about the comment you’re about to write where you tell me I’m wrong and that a lot of people care about Oppenheimer. Hollywood had 75 years to make a biopic about this guy and they didn’t. If people cared about him, one of the studios would’ve made the film, trust me. But boy could you feel the passion dripping from every frame in that movie due to Christopher Nolan’s obsession with Oppenheimer. It was his passion for that character that made the difference.
A script that starts strong and never lets up – We’ve forgotten about this on the site. Or maybe I’m not talking about it enough. There are a couple of common patterns I encounter with the scripts that I read. One is that a script will start off BIG and then, after that flashy cold open or sexy opening sequence, it will settle in, mellow out for a while, before eventually ramping back up in spurts.
Another pattern I encounter is scripts that spend the majority of their first halves in slow burn territory. And then, finally, they start paying off all that setup, leading to a fun and exciting final act.
Absent are the scripts that start strong then never let up. The writers who can pull this off start out with a great scene then say to themselves: “This is the bar for every scene in my script and I’m going to try and meet or exceed that bar.” I understand why writers don’t do this. CAUSE IT’S FREAKING HARD. It’s hard to give 100% of yourself every single scene. But there are so few scripts out there that do this, that if you’re one of the few writers who can pull it off, your script becomes way better than the competition.
What does this look like in execution? Mad Max: Fury Road. 1917. Memento. The Social Network. The original script for Source Code. The screenplay, Clementine.
But, believe it or not, you don’t need to write some big fast action thriller to meet this standard. Heretic is a script that starts strong then never lets up and that one is a slow-burner. The operating idea here is to continue to try and entertain with every scene. Too many writers take these little breaks during scenes that can last two scenes, three scenes, four scenes, or more. That’s not how you write a script that gets people’s attention.
Create at least one character who we really truly deeply connect with – I want to start off here by explaining what I *didn’t* just say. I *didn’t* just say to create a likable main character. Likable main characters are great. But what I’ve found is that “likability” is mostly for Hollywood-type movies. Those movies need to be easy breezy fun adventures so your main character’s likability is a key part of that.
Instead, if you want to write a script that RESONATES with someone – that they think about days, even months, after they’ve finished it – you have to write a character that resonates on a deep level. Yes, the equation for resonance is a complex one. There is no perfect formula. But it’s a combination of sympathetic traits, aspects of the character we feel empathy for, a character who is wrestling with conflict inside of them, a character who needs to overcome some flaw that has held them back from finding happiness for most of their lives, and a character who is battling unresolved issues with other characters in their lives. All of these things help create a character we want to root for.
I just read this book, The Curious Incident of The Dog in the Nighttime. It’s told through the eyes of a 15 year old autistic boy. The next door neighbor’s dog is murdered and he sets out to find out who killed the dog. The character exemplifies everything I listed above. His condition makes us sympathetic. We empathize with his troubles connecting with other people. He is against lying but realizes that in order to solve the murder, he will have to lie (internal conflict). His flaw is his stubbornness. And he has major unresolved issues he’s battling through with the two closest people in his life. It’s impossible to read that book and forget about that character.
Be unpredictable – You’ve heard me exhaustively talk about this on the site. In that sense, ironically, I’m being quite predictable with this tip. But the reality is a predictable script is a boring script. But creating an unpredictable experience inside a formulaic medium is a challenging proposition. However, that’s exactly why you want to do it. You want to do it because most other writers don’t. It takes too much effort and is too hard to push yourselves and come up with unpredictable plot points and unpredictable character actions and unpredictable story revelations.
When a reader is reading a script, you want to imagine that they have a meter above their head. And the meter is showing, at any particular time, where their interest is on a 1-10 scale. The deeper into a script they read where they’re able to generally predict what’s going to happen next, the more that number will fall. Once it gets to a “6″ and it doesn’t rise back up within the next few scenes, that’s when the reader checks out.
I remember never quite knowing where Parasite was going next. I remember having no idea where Anora was going once Alexi disappeared. Final Destination: Bloodlines did a great job tricking us several times, mixing up who was getting killed next. Even though Speak No Evil was a relatively formulaic movie, I was never quite sure what was going to happen next. And that’s a key point to this tip. I’m not looking for giant twists every other scene. I just want you, the writer, to be ahead of the reader most of the time. Not the other way around. Cause for the large majority of scripts that I read, I’m 40-50 pages ahead of the writer.
Be exceptional in at least one major part of screenwriting – There are too many screenplays I read where writers do everything well but nothing great. And for a script to truly leave an impact, you have to do at least one thing great. You have to be great at dialogue. You have to be great at writing unforgettable action set pieces. You have to be amazing at creating deep interesting thoughtful characters. You have to have an exceptionally unique voice.
The trick to nailing this task is to ask yourself BEFORE you write your script what it is you are best at. Then, make sure the next script you write allows you to feature that skill. A great failed example of this was Wednesday’s script, “Turnaround.” There wasn’t a single aspect of that script that stood out. Which is relevant because the writer had already proven, by landing on the top slot of the Black List with a previous script, that she was a good writer. But it doesn’t matter if you’re a good writer if you pick a script that doesn’t allow you to feature what you’re good at.
A positive example of this is Aaron Sorkin. It doesn’t matter what project you ask him to adapt, he will turn it into a talky “play-like” movie because he’s so damn good at writing those types of movies.
We’ve got about 40 days left. Plenty of time to institute some of these tips. Good luck and KICK ASS!
A former Black List topping author whose great script only failed to get developed because it, ironically, got blacklisted by Madonna is back with a new take on Macbeth
Genre: Drama/Comedy
Premise: (from Black List) After beloved movie star Tom Adair is found dead, the outpouring of grief and sympathy quickly elevates his best friend Alec Donavan to movie star status. Now Alec must contend with his newfound fame and success–and the fact that he and his agent/girlfriend Karynn Pieper secretly murdered Tom and are haunted by his vengeful ghost.
About: Today’s writer has topped the Black List before with a Madonna biopic that was awesome. She’s back, and this latest script of hers is an adaptation of one of the most popular stories of all time – MacBeth.
Writer: Elyse Hollander
Details: 100 pages
Perfect casting?
For a long time, it has been thought that scripts about the industry don’t work. The failure of HBO’s The Franchise seemed to confirm that pulling off the subject matter was impossible. But then The Studio came along and proved that it could be done!
Has “Turnaround” also cracked the code on stories based on the industry? Let’s find out!
Set in the early 2000s (why? who knows??), 30-something Alec Donovan, an actor, is struggling to make ends meet. He’s resorted to writing his own script. But all the big producers in town tell him that the only way this script will get made is if he has a movie star in the lead role.
It just so happens that Alec has a movie star best friend! Tom Adair. But he and Tom haven’t spoken in forever. Ironically, the two have the same agent, Karynn Piper. And Alec is sleeping with Karynn. But even she tells him it ain’t happening with Tom, who’s on the set of his latest movie, about Caesar.
As it so happens, one of the actors on the movie ODs on some bad coke, and Tom figures he’ll throw his buddy a bone, hiring him onto the movie. Later on, Alec decides to see if Tom will be in his movie so he goes over to his house. That’s when he sees that there’s a young attractive naked dead guy in Tom’s bed. Another OD!
Soon, Karynn is over and the three are deciding what to do with the body. But when Tom starts commanding them around, Alec loses it and pushes his friend down the stairs, killing him. Alec and Karynn decide to stage the house like it was just these two here and jet out.
Cut to a year later and Alec has used the publicity of his friend’s death to become a hot commodity in Tinseltown. He even stars in the sequel to that Caesar movie. Alec has to deal with all the responsibilities of his newfound position, which include being a sellout, something he vehemently detests.
But that’s not nearly as big of a problem as his dead friend deciding to haunt him. “Haunt” is a strong word. I’d say it’s more like trolling. He doesn’t threaten Alec. He just says a lot of things that make him feel bad. Of course, Alec thinks he’s going insane, which interferes with his movie star life. He eventually has a mental breakdown before realizing he must take care of this problem once and for all.
Oof.
Oof oof.
Double oof.
This was not good.
You can always tell, too.
You know immediately if a script isn’t going to work, even if it’s a good writer, like today.
The second I saw that we were randomly setting the movie in the early 2000s I said, “Uh oh.” If stories are set in random near-past time periods for no reason, that’s a good sign that a crappy script is coming.
And then the structure was… nonexistent. Things just happen like they’re being made up on the spot.
This supporting actor dies of an overdose on the set of Tom’s movie and then Alec replaces him. Then that production ends and we cut to another death, when Tom’s boy toy ends up overdosing at his house. Then, not long after that, we get the THIRD death of the first 30 pages, with Tom himself getting murdered.
That’s what we call “all over the place storytelling.”
We cut to one year later because of course we do. Remember yesterday how I told you that extremely tight time frames were screenplay catnip. This shows you what happens when you go the opposite direction. After that one-year jump cut, all the air left the balloon. The story basically starts over with Alec now being a movie star in Tom’s stead.
Then we just… hang out for a bunch of scenes. At a certain point, I checked the page number. It was page 65 and NO PLOT HAD BEGUN YET! There was no engine underneath the pages. The script existed solely to wait for every instance that Tom could haunt Alec. And he didn’t even haunt him that much! Want to know what a script that actually has structure and an engine looks like so you can compare good to bad? Check out any version of A Christmas Carol.
I’d go so far as to say, I don’t think this script did a single thing right. Even the humor wasn’t funny. “Some would say, thirty-five is too old to die young, you know?” Is that a funny line? I know it “presents” as funny. But does it make you laugh?
“Hanging around funny” is not the same as funny. A lot of writers forget that. They think that if they can place some jokes near funny, that will be enough. But funny needs to actually be funny.
The thing is, we’ve got a comp for this on how to do it right. “The Studio.” The Studio is covering the same ground but it’s doing it in a way fresher and funnier way. Note that The Studio does what I was teaching everybody yesterday – using The Big U for all of its episodes.
It also had much clearer characters with clear characteristics, which is imperative to the humor hitting. You have the new studio head who loves artsy movies yet is forced to make brainless big-budget shlock. You have the “That Guy” producer, a talentless douchebag who knows it’s only a matter of time before people figure out he doesn’t know what he’s doing. You have the overly ambitious assistant. And you have the over-the-top marketing girl.
Here in Turnaround, Alec’s character is pretty clear. He’s living in his friend’s shadow. Karynn is clear – she’s the cold-blooded agent. But she’s so cliche that everything she does is boring and obvious. But the real difference in these two character groups is that we don’t like either of the characters in this script. Whereas we like all of The Studio characters.
Here’s one certainty I have learned over 20 years of reading – If you have unlikable leads and no plot engine, there is NO WAY your script will work. It is literally impossible to pull off.
And I think that the pushback to my criticism would be that this is an adaptation of one of the most successful stories of all time in MacBeth. But there’s a slight difference in the time periods that the two versions of the story are released in. And I’m pretty sure that in 1606, Shakespeare didn’t have to compete with an infinite-scrolling app of endless entertainment.
You gotta change with the times, baby. A stronger structure. More urgency. And characters we can actually get behind. This was very close to a “What the hell did I just read.”
The sad thing is that those improvements would probably only make this script average. The DNA here is full of too many cobwebs to turn this into a winner.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: It is VERY DIFFICULT to make a big time jump after the first act and have the script work. I’m not saying it’s impossible. But in all the scripts I’ve read that have done it, I’d say 99.9% of them sucked. So, don’t do it unless you absolutely know what you’re doing and you have a good reason to do so as well as a strong game plan for executing it.
How to hack the spec screenwriting game – “The Big U”
Genre: Drama/Thriller
Premise: Through a maddening day of mediation for an office harassment claim she filed,
the clock is ticking on Dana as she questions the price of her silence, sanity, and
the truth.
About: Audrey Ellis Fox is a writer-director who has directed a lot of videos and shorts. This script finished on last year’s Black List with 9 votes.
Writer: Audrey Ellis Fox
Details: 100 pages
Emma Corrin for Dana?
Don’t worry. We’re going to get into what “The Big U” is soon. And no, it’s not what some of your dirty minds are thinking. Get your heads out of the gutter! Especially with today’s subject matter. We have to be respectful. Oh, who am I kidding? When am I ever respectful.
You know, I’m actually surprised to learn that today’s writer is also a director. Normally, writer-directors over-direct on the page. They put in way too much description, as they care more about aiding themselves for the shoot rather than writing an easy-to-read story. Props to Fox for thinking of the reader. No doubt that contributed to how this got on the Black List. Now let’s talk about the plot.
We meet 24 year old Dana as she gets on an elevator. Seconds later, 29 year old Patrick steps on. We can tell, despite there being other people in the elevator, that Dana feels very uncomfortable in Patrick’s presence.
Once Dana gets to her destination floor, she encounters her lawyer, Scott, and we start to get a sense of what’s going on. This is an agreed-upon mediation between Dana and Patrick for something Patrick did to her at work. We don’t know the details yet. But we understand that the goal is to get this mediation done TODAY or it will likely go to court, which neither party wants.
Soon after, an older woman named Colette comes in. She is the mediator. Her job will be to walk back and forth between Dana’s and Patrick’s room and attempt to come to an agreement that both parties are satisfied with. And, almost immediately, there’s tension in the air. That’s because a mystery person is texting our heroine, sending her racy pictures of herself.
The incident in question was sort of a Harvey Weinstein situation. Dana, a software engineer, was drinking with her co-workers on a Vegas road trip, and when the night went late, found herself in an elevator with a friend and Patrick. For lack of a better expression, Patrick pulled his Johnson out and ejaculated on her. The two sides are trying to decide how much that’s worth to Dana.
But Dana doesn’t have the cleanest life. Before she was working as a software engineer, she had an OnlyFans page. Gotta git that money. Not only that, but she has some history with Patrick. They’ve known each other since they were kids. He’s the one who gave her the job. They had several dinners leading up to him giving her the job, all of which she claims were business dinners. But were they?
The first offer from Patrick’s team is a low-ball. Less than six figures. To get them up, Colette says, she’s going to need Dana to convince her how bad this was. The thing is, Dana has a witness to all this – her co-worker – who was in the elevator at the time. But her friend is MIA and doesn’t seem to want to get involved. However, she calls at the final hour, and her testimony is either going to help Dana, or destroy her entire case.
Okay, so let’s get into it.
What’s The Big U?
The Big U is BIG URGENCY.
Big Urgency is not the same as urgency. It’s urgency on steroids, and it’s one of the biggest hacks in spec screenwriting. The objective is to build your story around a really tight timeline.
Want to tell a story about high school? Set it over one day.
Want to tell a story about an Amazon delivery worker? Set it between sun-up and sun-down.
Want to tell a story about a family trip to the beach? Set it over the course of two hours.
The condensing of time creates constraint, which creates tension, which creates conflict. Urgency forces the story to move along quickly, which can make anything entertaining to watch.
I’ll prove to you just how powerful this tool is.
“NDA” is not a movie if it takes place over a week. It’s not even a movie if it takes place over 72 hours. This only works when you condense the timeframe to one day. Think about it. People are more interested when the problem at hand needs to be figured out NOW. Not in a month. Not in a week. NOW!
I expect at least two entries in the Mega-Showdown to be scripts containing The Big U.
And by the way, I’m not saying that The Big U is NECESSARY to write a good script. But I do consider it to be a secret weapon, especially in the highly competitive space of spec script writing. Spec script readers have the shortest attention span of all readers. So they respond well to these scripts.
How was the actual script though??
Funny you ask. Because I think this shows the power of The Big U even more. You don’t see the weaknesses in the script nearly as clearly as you normally would because the urgency is catapulting us through the story.
But I did see some issues. This whole “keeps getting texts” plot development is one I’ve seen frequently lately. I’d say I’ve seen it four times in the last three months in similar scripts I’ve read. That tells me it’s low-hanging fruit – an easy creative choice. Typically, you want to push past the easy creative choices and come up with the ones that nobody would have thought of.
The rules of this mediation were also shakier than a knockoff Cuisinart. It wasn’t clear how things worked. There were no absolute rules or guidelines to be followed. Colette only seemed to leave the room and go see Patrick when the writer felt it was necessary (i.e. she needed to have Dana go off on her own and regroup). This ate into the script’s realism, weakening the suspension of disbelief. I wanted the rules to be more sophisticated. I wanted to be convinced this was really happening.
Finally, I want to mention the ending but it requires me to get into spoilers. So stay away from the below if you want to read the script fresh. After the mediation, which Dana has won for nearly 200k, she follows Patrick down the hallway. When he gets in the elevator, she dips in after him.
She then proceeds to step into his space, so he turns around and backs up. Presumably, she is trying to make him feel just as uncomfortable in the elevator as he made her feel that night. But, also, the writer indicates that there’s a “charge” here, leaving open the possibility that these two were in cahoots all along, bilking the company out of 200k that they would now, presumably, split?
I mean… huh?? This is serious enough subject matter that we should know, definitively, if he did what it was alleged he did. You can’t play both sides of the fence and leave it up to the reader with a script like this. I’m fine if it’s a twist and they were in it together. But that has to be crystal clear as we leave the script. This reveal was way too vague and left me feeling frustrated.
Even with its weaknesses, however, this is a good script to study if you’re an aspiring screenwriter. Shouldn’t be hard to find on the internet but comment below if you want the script and I’m sure someone will send it to you.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Once you come up with your screenplay idea, ask yourself if it is a Big U idea. It may not be. Which is fine. But if it can be turned into a Big U idea, seriously consider it. Average ideas can morph into high concept ideas with this hack. :)
We’re now officially a month and a half away from the only screenwriting competition decided by REAL PEOPLE – aka YOU. Not these clueless fancy contest readers with their big contest price tags and questionable taste. I’d say that the average Scriptshadow reader is way more capable of judging a screenplay than those wannabes. So fine-tune those scripts. I have the utmost confidence that we’re going to find a killer screenplay.
HOW TO SUBMIT
What: Mega Showdown
When: Friday, August 1
Deadline: Thursday, July 31, 10pm Pacific Time
Send me your: Script title, genre, logline, and a PDF of the script
Where: carsonreeves3@gmail.com
Let’s discuss what occurred over the weekend. Despite my AI post sparking some controversy, with critics labeling me as the devil for supporting AI, this weekend’s box office results make one thing clear: AI just received some great news.
If movies are, indeed, in danger of being created completely by AI (I don’t think they are, btw), the first movies it’s going to happen with are these Disney and Universal live-action remakes.
Why? Because the scripts have already been written for these former movies. So all AI has to do is make a few modern changes and the script is taken care of. And then AI loves to generate these live-action video images, which is all they’re doing with these live-action remakes. They’re photo-realistic animation basically.
So anybody in the business is kind of in a pickle. On the one hand, you want to celebrate any cinematic success, as it keeps the lights on. But if you’re an artist, movies like How To Train Your Dragon are bad news. Cause these will soon be the testing grounds that Hollywood uses to experiment on AI.
The other big release this weekend comes from A24. “Materialists” is Celine Song’s follow-up to her well-received debut romantic drama, “Past Lives.” Her newest film opened solid for an A24 film (12 million bucks) but low for a romantic comedy.
Regardless of where it landed on the Success-O-Meter, I count it as a success. Getting to double digits as an A24 film is always a big achievement. The indie production company understands that if you don’t have IP, you have to try something fresh. Song is making the world’s first sad rom-com. The muted tones. The apathetic lead. It’s a combo that shouldn’t work but pulled in enough bodies to validate the risk.
Still, these movies have to be great to have legs. And, when I watch the trailer, I see too much lightness to pull in the requisite amount of bodies to make this a hit. But at least it feels original. In that sense, it’s the “Anti How To Train Your Dragon” – a film that could not have been conceived through AI.
Speaking of trying something different, Neon is crashing and burning with The Life of Chuck (2.5 mil opening). I tried to tell them that this was one of the worst stories I’ve ever read in any form in my life but they didn’t listen. But even if you disagreed with my review, the real lesson here is that you cannot write a movie that doesn’t have an identifiable genre and expect people to see it.
What is the genre for The Life of Chuck? Nobody knows! Cause it doesn’t have one. And people DO NOT SHOW UP TO MOVIES WHEN THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THE GENRE IS. I know artists hate to hear this but it’s the truth. And the irony is that these very same artists do the same thing.
Moving from the past to the future, everyone is moviegasming over the July To Die For. We’ve got three huge movie releases happening in July. Marvel is trying, for a third time, to make Fantastic Four a thing. Warner Brothers is restarting the DC universe with Superman. And Universal couldn’t even wait the minimum amount of time for a reboot – 5 years – to begin another Jurassic Park adventure.
So, we’re going to play a brand new game here on Scriptshadow: Bang, Marry, Kill. Which of these movies am I going to bang? Which will I get down on one knee for? And which will I mercilessly slaughter? Go make your guesses down in the comments section before you continue (and make sure to offer your own BMK choices).
Okay, let’s start with Bang. I’m going to bang Superman. Wait a minute. I was not thinking before I wrote that sentence. Oh well, too late. Superman looks like something I could have a great night out with. It’s exciting, new, handsome. Of the three options, it will definitely make me laugh the most. Yeah, I’m banging Superman all night long. None of the other movies come close.
As for marriage. Ooh, this is a tough one. But I think I have to go with Fantastic Four. Why? Because it looks harmless. It looks like someone I can trust. I’m definitely not going to have the best whoopee of my life with Fantastic Four, but I can see us cuddling all night long after the physical fireworks. Will there be times during our relationship where I’m bored? Definitely. Will she annoy me at times? You bet. But overall, Fantastic Four is the lady I’ll be the most comfortable with.
This leaves… I’m sorry Scarlett Johansen… but this leaves Jurassic World as my murder victim. Literally the ONLY thing this movie has going for it is how Johansen is a super fan of the franchise and finally gets a chance to be in it. But outside of that, this reeks hardcore of a money grab. Three years after the “conclusion to the Jurassic World franchise?” THREE YEARS??? You couldn’t wait any longer? If you had some amazing fresh dinosaur idea, then sure. Fine. But this is such a “par for the course” concept that it’s slotting itself in the pole position for “most unnecessary movie of the year.” I’m sorry Jurassic World. But I need to kill you.
We have one more dark horse entry to throw into the mix. 28 Years Later. I can bang it, marry it, or kill it. Is there any way we can add a fourth option? Date it? I’m not going to lie. I’m scared to death of this movie. It looks to go beyond typical horror and more like something that haunts your nightmares for months on end. It looks… relentless. But I have no choice but to date it. It’s written by one of my favorite writers, Alex Garland. In that respect, it has a shot at being better than all of these films. So, assuming I don’t chicken out, expect a review next Monday.
Get back to writing your scripts. Mega-Showdown is coming!
