Today’s TV pilot packs a surprising punch while teaching us a few necessities to writing a good pilot. Never underestimate the Lopez.

Genre: TV Pilot – Cop Procedural
Premise: A dirty female cop thinks she’s got the city by the balls until an unexpected event forces her to deceive the crew she runs with.
About: This is a BIG show NBC is banking on. It stars Jennifer Lopez and Ray Liotta and was written by Adi Hasak, who gave us the Travolta film, From Paris with Love and the Costner thriller, 3 Days to Kill, which Hasak co-wrote with Luc Besson. The pilot is being directed by Barry Levinson (Rain Man). I’ve heard good things about the script so I decided to give it a shot!
Writer: Adi Hasak
Details: 57 pages – First Network Draft (January 20th, 2015)

You know, I used to see a show like this and go, “What are they thinking? Another major network cop procedural? We’ve got 50 of those to choose from already.” Then you’ve got the judge from American Idol and an actor whose best roles are 20 years behind him. And you expect me to get excited about this?

But I’ve grown to respect how hard it is to get a TV show on the air. Much like when I saw Transformers 10 years ago and thought, “Anybody could write that,” I’ve since learned that only the biggest screenwriters who have worked, at minimum, ten years in the business, get to write those films. We may see this stuff as yet another generic cop show or yet another generic popcorn movie. But don’t be fooled. This is the top of the mountain. This is the most studios and networks pay to put a show together. So they want the best. And therefore, the scripts and writers who make it to this mountaintop? They’re doing something VERY RIGHT.

And usually, when you look a little closer to these big pickups, there’s more going on than you think. With cop procedurals (or medical procedurals, or legal procedurals) the genres are so crowded, you have to find a new angle. How do you do that with a format that’s been around for 50 years? You do it by locating a CURRENT ISSUE and exploiting that. Because besides going high-concept, the only way to differentiate yourself from the past is to focus on the present.

What’s the current issue in Shades of Blue? Cops illegally killing people and cooperating with one another in order to get away with it.

In fact, that’s how our show starts. 36 year-old Harlee Santos, a tough female cop who lives for her 16 year-old daughter, is escorting her green partner, Loman, on what should be a routine Q&A with a local drug dealer. But Loman freaks out and shoots the man despite the fact that he didn’t do anything.

While Loman goes white, Harlee methodically dresses the scene to look like the thug shot first. We’re going to get through this fine, Harlee assures her new partner. Loman, however, doesn’t look so optimistic.

It turns out this isn’t Harlee’s first foray into Sketch City. Her Lieutenant (and godfather to her daughter), Bill Wozniak, runs an inter-precinct outfit with Harlee and a few other dirty cops that skims money off the local establishments. That’s right. Harlee’s dirty. Very dirty. But hey, she’s doing it for a good cause. Her daughter. So it’s all right, right?

While Harlee frets about internal affairs investigating the shooting, she’s told that the deceased’s partner is still on the loose, and so he becomes her target. But just when she thinks everything is going smoothly, she’s caught skimming money from a local drug dealer, and the FBI swoops in. Uh oh. She’s been set up.

Robert Staal, the agent in charge of this operation, wants Harlee to do the worst thing imaginable. He wants her to go undercover and take down her entire corrupt crew. If she does this, she won’t do 8-10 years. Harlee balks at first, until the steely Staal reminds her that a daughter growing up in a rough neighborhood without any parental figures usually doesn’t end well for the daughter.

Harlee reluctantly signs the deal with the devil, and begins the hardest job of her life – deceiving the only people in the world she trusts.

When you write a script, whether it be a pilot or a feature, you have a choice at the beginning. You can either set up your characters, or you can dramatize the situation. Dramatizing something means finding an interesting situation with conflict and suspense, something an audience will want to keep reading about until it’s resolved.

Character walks into ice cream shop and talks with an old friend? – not dramatized.

Character walks into ice cream shop to tell an old friend that she has to end their friendship? – dramatized

Since today’s script is about shades, the balance between setting up characters and dramatizing is never a set percentage. There are shades. You can focus mainly on the setup while doing a little bit of dramatizing. Or you can focus mainly on a big dramatic event and squeeze in a few decent character setups when possible. Every script will have different requirements.

But I’m going to let you in on a secret that only the pros know. When you DRAMATIZE a situation, you set up your characters without even trying. That’s because we get to know characters best when they’re under pressure and faced with difficult choices.

For instance, here, we get to know Harlee and Loman through the actions they take in this opening scene. Loman accidentally kills this guy. He’s frozen, freaking out, unable to process what he’s done. Meanwhile, Harlee moves into cover-up mode without blinking. She’s cool and calm under pressure, a total pro.

We learn a TON about these two from their actions here (or, in Loman’s case, his lack of action). It’s still the best way going to set up characters. So stop with the clever dialogue scenes or played-out cop banter. Put your characters in a difficult situation and watch how they react. That will tell us everything we need to know about them.

I knew Shades of Blue was going to be good when I read that opening scene. If a writer shows skill in highly important areas (like setting up characters), I know he knows what he’s doing and will make more good choices.

So I wasn’t surprised when I saw Hasak interweave his scenes. What did you say, Carson? Inter-what? What the hell are you talking about?

To understand interweaving scenes, one must first understand compartmentalizing scenes. When you compartmentalize scenes, you say: This is the interrogation scene THEN This is the investigation scene THEN This is the scene where they visit Joe at his apartment and ask if he’s the killer THEN This is the scene where Harlee gets caught. If you write like that, with everything so separate and insular, your script is going to get predictable and boring.

Instead, you want your scenes to have tentacles and for those tentacles to intermingle and wrap around each other to create not scenes, but more like scene-hybrids, a series of moments that tackle multiple story issues.

Let me give you an example.

In the middle of Shades of Blue, Harlee gets caught by the FBI. They bring her to their hideout and tell her she’ll be arrested unless she helps them. This has the potential to be a compartmentalized scene. It’s insular. It’s straightforward. We’re heading towards Boringsville. So pay attention to how Hasak avoids this.

Throughout the script, we’ve been building up Harlee’s daughter’s recital. It’s extremely important to her daughter. If her mother misses it, she may disown her mom. That recital happens to be happening RIGHT NOW.

So Harlee pesters the FBI about this. She HAS to be at that recital. She’ll talk to them. She’ll consider what they want. But she HAS to be at that recital. If she isn’t, they can expect nothing from her. Staal, the leader, begrudgingly lets her go. But he has to accompany her.

We then get a scene where our FBI agent who’s going to make our hero rat out all her accomplices, joins her while watching her daughter’s recital. To make things even more fun, Hasak has Wozniak (the guy who’s leading the group that Harlee will have to take down) show up at the recital and sit down on the other side of Harlee.

We realize we’re experiencing the best scene in a cop show and it’s not taking place in an alleyway, in a drug den, or on the Number 4 train at 2 a.m. It’s taking place at a high school cello recital. And that’s why you interweave shit as opposed to compartmentalize it. When you interweave, you get much more interesting scenes that put your characters in environments or situations that they wouldn’t normally be in.

Amateurs NEVER DO THIS. They always have the “FBI gets the cop to agree to their terms” scene take place back at the boring office, a compartmentalized scene we’ve seen a billion times before.

When you read Shades of Blue, you realize how it beat out so many other pilots to get on the air. It’s good writing. I mean shit, it’s got a bad guy who, while yelling at a guy at the morgue, stuffs human ashes down his throat to shut him up. Where else ya going to find that??

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

What I learned: In features, every loop that is opened must be closed. Not in pilots. You can open as many loops as you want and leave them open. Take advantage of this. You can set some pretty crazy stuff up even though you don’t yet know how you’re going to resolve it. But hey, if it sounds cool and makes a producer want to buy the thing, what do you care? You’ll cross that bridge once you’ve got your fully-staffed writers’ room. ☺

What I learned 2: Unfinished business. Always keep some unfinished business going on in the background of your story. If you finish business, make sure there’s other unfinished business threads going on as well. This is particularly important in TV, where you’re forced to write a lot of low-budget one-on-one character scenes. These scenes stay interesting, in part, because we know that unfinished business is still out there needing resolution. The example of that here is Harlee’s pursuit of Malik, the other guy who was in the apartment when Loman killed the dealer. Harlee has numerous scenes with other characters where she’s dealing with other story threads, and even though they’re occasionally slow, we roll with them because we’ve got that juicy unfinished business thread with Malik to look forward to. If all your business if finished, you may as well end your show.

Can two of the hottest new names in film bring life to the overexposed city of Boston? Let’s find out!

Genre: Crime Thriller
Premise: A gun deal in Boston (1978) between the Irish and some local Bostonians goes horribly awry.
About: We’ve got a live one here folks. Everyone’s been telling me that this Ben Wheatley guy is the oak tree’s knees. I’ve been informed I HAVE to see his breakout movie, Kill List, a dark flick about a hitman. And that his upcoming High Rise, starring Tom Hiddleston (Avengers), is gaining a lot of heat as well. Free Fire stars Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Cillian Murphy and Sharlto Copley. It finished production recently and is currently in post. Expect it in 2016.
Writer: Ben Wheatley
Details: 96 pages – unknown draft

I didn’t know who Ben Wheatley was until last week, when he started popping up on a bunch of web sites and people started e-mailing me that he was the best up-and-coming director since Tarantino. I knew Brie Larson of course. But after Room, she went into that upper stratosphere of actresses I will check out anything they’re in from now on. That girl’s going to win the Oscar.

So when I heard these two were doing a movie together, I just about flipped. Until I saw what movie it was: Free Fall. FREE FALL??? That vapid glorified beat sheet about a girl who climbs a mountain with her dad?? Nooooooooooo!!!

I was so depressed. Until I looked a little closer and saw that the project was actually titled Free FIRE. “Fire.” Not “Fall.” Oh, thank god. I can’t tell you how happy that made me. Time to find out if one of the buzziest projects in the industry is worthy all the hype…

It’s 1978. It’s Boston. Back in Ireland, the IRA is terrorizing the country. Frank and his underling, Chris, are a couple of Irishman who need guns to help fight that war. But this isn’t modern times where you can buy a snazzletooth L14 doppleslicer on Amazon and then 3-D print it four minutes later. They didn’t even have the internet back then. Which meant people had to buy weapons the old fashioned way – in sketchy warehouses in the bad parts of town.

Which is where Chris and Frank are. Accompanying them is Justine, a Swede who’s brokered this deal. Whereas everyone else is rough around the edges, Justine wears an expensive suit and looks as clean as a brand new 1978 Cadillac. Hell, she might even resemble the 1979 model.

On the flip side, they’ve got Steveo. No, not the half-retarded jackass from Jack-Ass, but he might as well be. Steveo’s already high on heroin when he shows up and sports a shiner from a mysterious run-in last night. Frank did NOT want Steveo on the team but he didn’t have a choice. They needed a man. Their usual guy pulled out. Call goes out to Reject #1.

The group heads into the warehouse. Leading the dealer side is a U.S. military man named Ord. He’s the kind of guy you want leading you down the trenches in Nam. His professionalism is downright intimidating, and he assures Frank that everything’s going to go smoothly and they’ll all be home with their children within the hour.

Wait a minute, Frank thinks. Since when were things NOT going to go smoothly? Why would they have thought otherwise? Oh yeah, we’re dealing with guns. LOTS OF GUNS. And when you deal with lots of guns, there’s always the possibility that something will go wrong. And something does go wrong. Frank was told that they’d be buying M-16s. But Ord has AR-18s, an inferior gun, instead. Frank’s pissed but they need these guns badly.

Meanwhile, one of Ord’s men, Harry, keeps eyeing a twitchy Steveo. There’s something familiar about this nitwit. The high-as-a-kite Steveo notices the attention and tries to play it cool, until Harry realizes where he knows him from. Steveo was part of a gang that bruised up his peeps last night, one of whom was Harry’s 17 year-old cousin. Harry starts chirping at Steveo, who swears he doesn’t know what Harry’s talking about, but the exchange gets louder and louder and, oh yeah, don’t forget there are over 200 guns sitting around…

I think you know which direction this safety switch is being flipped. Everyone scatters and a gunfight ensues. Like, the gunfight of all gunfights. To make matters worse, a third party starts firing AT BOTH SIDES from deeper inside the warehouse.

The. Fuck??? Who are they??? Nobody knows. But when everyone gets to cover and half of them are dead or dying, the sides will have to negotiate a way out of this mess, a task that no one seems up to. This gives us the distinct feeling that nobody’s getting out of here alive.

Let’s begin with Wheatley’s writing style, shall we? This might be the first professional screenplay I’ve read that was written on an iPhone. Contractions, capitalization, and punctuation (I’m talking essential punctuation, like periods) are scuttled in favor of text-like dialogue exchanges. Those of you who’ve gotten to know “Name” in the comments section and his infatuation with centering titles, would probably watch his head explode if he read this.

Now you may think I’d rip a script to shreds for this because that’s what I’d do if this were an amateur. So I’ve got to be fair, right? Well, I also know that this is a writer-director. And that means he’s not writing his script to get through the 15 levels of Hollywood “yeses” required before the script can be sent to a director. HE IS THE DIRECTOR. For that reason, fair or not, he doesn’t have to play by the rules. It’s the same reason Quentin Tarantino can make 800 spelling mistakes. His movie is already guaranteed 50 million for production the second he types the final period.

And hey, to be honest, I kind of dug this writing style. No, I don’t want you to adopt it. But dialogue is supposed to read quickly. And this text-approach without big letters and contractions and punctuation to muck up the words read super-fast. Since this was a dialogue-centric script, and since that style worked, I was liking what I was reading.

And in the end, all that matters is that the story works. And this story works. Not only that, but it’s unlike any script I’ve ever read. It’d be like if Martin Scorsese wrote a contained thriller. Ever fathom that? That’s exactly what you get here.

The script opens with a build. We’re building towards something important, and as each page goes by, the implication of just how dangerous this deal is grows. You know how I tell you guys to utilize an IMPENDING SENSE OF DOOM in your horror scripts? Imply that something bad is coming, then milk the suspense up until the point where you release the doom? Well, you can do that in any genre, and Wheatley does it to perfection here.

We get inside this warehouse and we can just tell something’s going to go wrong. Everybody’s so careful, but they’ve all got itchy trigger fingers. And itchy trigger fingers during a gun deal are liable to start scratching at some point. Bullet-scratching that is.

Remember back when I reviewed Jack Reacher? I told you that a scene that ALWAYS works, is to put two characters together who don’t quite know each other, and have one character cleaning or fixing or tending to a gun. The tension from that gun being in the middle of those characters brings the conversation alive. Because the audience knows that the potential for danger is just a flick of the wrist away. Well, Ben Wheatley has taken that concept and multiplied it by 1000. It isn’t just one small gun between our characters. It’s a couple hundred big guns.

With that said, when the giant gun fight finally begins (around page 40) and ends (around page 60), all of that built up tension is gone. We feel a bit like we’re laying around after sex. Sure, there’s the chance that the two of you could go again. But it’s not going to be as good as the first time, which was the release of an entire night of built-up sexual tension.

Indeed, these guys are talking back and forth with each other, trying to negotiate a solution, and we’re sort of like, “None of this is going to be as good as that earlier gun-fight.” What they needed to do was play up the mysterious third party A LOT MORE. Had they done that (and no, I don’t know why I’m referring to Wheatley as “they” now either), they might have had something to fill this new drama-free second-act void they’d created.

But the script excels in that it isn’t like anything else out there. Wheatley takes what’s typically a mid-script set-piece or a third-act climax and builds an entire movie around it. That’s forward-thinking and implies a storyteller who doesn’t see the world like the rest of us. If you can see the world differently from everyone else yet still see it in a marketable way, Hollywood won’t just let you through their doors, they’ll personally find you and drag you through them.

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

What I learned: I have a plea for all future writers of crime screenplays. Please please PLEASE do not use Russians. Using Russians as bad guys is so beyond cliché at this point, it’s embarrassing. It was so refreshing to read a crime script without Russians for once. And yes, I get that it was set in 1978 where you wouldn’t see Russians, but still. Use anybody but Russians, or any Eastern European countries for that matter. You’re more imaginative than that!

What I learned 2: RELEASE THE DOOM! How do you build a story? Find a point in your screenplay where doom is unleashed (aka – a huge gunfight). Then retrofit your story to slowly build up until that moment occurs. As long as we feel like things are building, we’re going to stick around until you hit us with the doom.

Welcome to a new weekly feature here at Scriptshadow. Now there’s no guarantee this is going to catch on. You may demand your money back in favor of extra Amateur Offerings voting. But I thought it’d be fun if, every week, either myself, or one of you, pitch an obscure, unknown, cult, or under-appreciated movie, offer it up to the readers as a recommendation, and then we can all discuss the screenwriting merits of it. I thought I’d start the first couple of weeks, and from there on out, readers can submit their suggestions to carsonreeves1@gmail.com (I know Poe will have a few!). If I read a compelling pitch, I’ll make that the “obscure movie of the week.” Just give me the movie title and then 300 words on why you think people should give it a watch.

We’re going to start with a ten year old movie that I believe is one of the most overlooked horror films of the new millennium. When it came out, I don’t think people realized how deep it was. They tagged it as one of the many “Sixth Sense” and “Ring” knock-offs that were coming out at the time. But there’s so much more going on here.

I think that’s where the movie got screwed. Because if you watch it passively, it does feel a little dumb. But if you pay attention – and I mean REALLY pay attention – you will experience one of the most fucked up and horrifying twists you’ve ever witnessed. It’s really disturbing. And here’s the thing. I don’t think half the people who watched this movie got the twist. I still remember Roger Ebert reviewing the film on his show and bringing up “nonsensical” things that indicated he didn’t understand said twist either. So go check this out (sorry, you’ll have to find it yourself) and discuss in the comments. Also feel free to down-vote this new feature if you’re not a fan. Enjoy!

Every Saturday we give YOU the Scriptshadow reader the opportunity to put your script up for critique against four other writers. If your screenplay gets the most votes, you get a review the following Friday. If that review is positive, you just might get some industry attention, as past Scriptshadow Amateur Fridayers can attest. With that in mind, let me remind the amazing Scriptshadow faithful that we tend to get less entries after weekends when the commenters are too harsh. I think when you cut writers down too hard, it scares potential submitters away.

Since I know you want to read the best scripts possible, let’s try and be critical but also supportive. Nobody here is a pro yet, and many are just starting out. So they don’t know everything. Help them out by critiquing their script with a positive slant. Less “Your characters bored me to death” and more “You should look into how to arc your characters.” I just want to bring the best scripts to you all, and I think that’s the best way. For those new to this exercise, read as much as you can from every script and vote for your favorite in the comment section. Enjoy, everyone! OH! And one more thing. I’m going to try something new on Sundays. So tune in tomorrow for what may be a new weekly post. Look at me, I’m such a tease.

Title: REMOTE
Genre: sci-fi/thriller
Logline: A freak winter storm creates a rip in time, giving a desperate, grieving man one final chance to save his recently deceased wife and daughter, but only if he can prevent a young woman from being brutally murdered.
Why You Should Read: I have submitted my short films to you in the past, “The Last Halloween” and “Remote” (which this submission is based on) and figured it was time to share a screenplay with you and my fellow Script Shadow readers. My script is a feature length expansion of my critically acclaimed and award winning short film “Remote”. Who hasn’t wanted to hit the “reset” button after a bad decision or tragic event – to turn back the clock and fix a mistake? To right a wrong? Remote explores this idea in the context of a psychological thriller, with a dash of speculative fiction, in what I believe to be a fresh take on the idea of second chances. It takes two of the most familiar themes in genre filmmaking – namely, serial killers and time travel – and combines them in a visually striking way, contrasting modern digital media and old-school analog technology. At it’s core, Remote is a human drama that explores loss, grief and regret. But it is also a story about hope and redemption. With adrenaline-charged set pieces, my goal is to constantly keep the audience guessing and engaged, never quite sure what to expect, and always amazed by what comes next. — You can view the short film here.

Scriptshadow periodic reminder to center those title pages!

Title: My Companion’s Lair
Genre: Horror
Logline: A troubled young woman, still grieving the loss of her parents, fears losing her ailing best friend, then considers killing her, when a stronger candidate unwittingly presents herself.
Why You Should Read: My intention, in writing a horror story, was to remove several lame elements, common in most; namely: gore, jumps scares, and rampant teen sex, and replace them with rarities, such as: interesting characters, and a compelling story. — And, after two years and, roughly, a dozen drafts, I think I’ve ended up with a pretty darn solid horror story; one that satisfies the above criteria, and is, at least, “worth the read.” — But, enough out of me; accept this invitation, to “My Companion’s Lair,” and decide for yourself.

Title: The Source
Genre: Action, Fantasy
Logline: A young slacker is recruited into a secret war between a dangerous, centuries old magical force and the warriors fighting to save the world from it.
Why You Should Read: After writing a script at the start of this year, I was extremely fortunate to be helped by some very generous people in the industry and the circulation of that script permeated a phone call from the head of one of the biggest representation companies in LA, and an inquiry from the people of one of, well, The Avengers. Rather heartbreakingly, neither of these leads worked out. That script was about classical music and hookers. This one is my genre script. We’ll skip the moderate alcoholism and time I spent in the fetal position in between the two. I’ve been trying to write this script for two years and I think I might have finally cracked it. All things considered, that probably means I didn’t. I don’t have (m)any people to bounce ideas off of so hopefully you guys can help. And if I haven’t cracked it, well there’s always that spot on the floor in the corner of my bedroom. The tears have dried now.

Title: Dead Drunk & Naked
Genre: Action Thriller
Logline: A troubled state police officer teams with his cantankerous war veteran father when he tries to rescue his younger brothers, two muscle car street-rodders who have gotten in over their heads transporting marijuana for a team of ex Special Forces assassins.
Why You Should Read: Because it’s a polished draft in a classic genre, with strong characters, crisp dialogue, and set in a unique world. This is by definition a low concept genre exercise, and yet these types of movies seem to get made all the time, albeit straight to VOD and DVD, so I’m hopeful that an AF spotlight might help get this script in front of the right eyes. It’s gotten a little bit of love on the contest circuit (Page Semi Finals and two rounds at Austin), and I’m optimistic that many of the great SS Faithful will enjoy it and that it will rise to the top if given a spot on AOW.

Title: The Big Stink
Genre: Kids Animation
Logline: Times are changing in a small community of stinkbugs and resident Stew Stinker doesn’t fit in. After he’s exiled for being too stinky, Stew learns that being himself is the key to saving his tiny town from a group of Wasps sent to root them out.
Why You Should Read: My roommate and I moved to California 4 years ago and this script is all we have to show for it. This is literally our baby, and it’s unlike anything you’ve ever read. It has heart, comedy, action, and the cuteness factor that all successful animated kids movies have in common.

REALLY LIKE THIS WEEK! Some strong contenders. One is a writer who I’ve personally read and know is great. And Dead Drunk & Naked may have one of the most polished and professional loglines submitted to Amateur Offerings all year. This ought to be good.

Get Your Script Reviewed On Scriptshadow!: To submit your script for an Amateur Review, send in a PDF of your script, along with the title, genre, logline, and finally, something interesting about yourself and/or your script that you’d like us to post along with the script if reviewed. Use my submission address please: Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Remember that your script will be posted. If you’re nervous about the effects of a bad review, feel free to use an alias name and/or title. It’s a good idea to resubmit every couple of weeks so your submission stays near the top.

Genre: Sci-Fi
Premise (from writer): When a young man serving on the zeppelin Hindenburg discovers that a deadly, shape-shifting alien is hidden on board, he must defeat it or the girl he loves will suffer a fate worse than death.
Why You Should Read (from writer): I already sent you two of my other scripts for the Scriptshadow 250 contest, but what you wrote about the lack of big idea scripts inspired me to send you my biggest idea script. With its love story on a doomed vessel coupled with an alien which can assume the form of anyone it devours, it’s like TITANIC meets THE THING… I worked hard to make the script as easy to read as possible (no paragraph over 2 lines, only 97 pages) and to keep it moving and entertaining. If you’ll like it I’d really love for you to come on board as a producer!
Writer: Tal Gantz
Details: 97 pages

A little Ansel for David here?

I’m throwing EVERYONE for a loop today. There was a lot of discussion over last week’s group of scripts, but not a lot of voting. I think that says something. If people aren’t compelled enough to even type “I vote for [x]” in a comment, then something’s missing from your script. So I decided to look into it more deeply until I finally figured out what the problem was. I can’t believe, in retrospect, how obvious it was.

The writers didn’t center their title pages.

As we all know, the most important part of any screenplay is not just the title page, but how well you center that title. I try to get this across to new writers all the time. It’s not about character or dialogue or structure. It’s about centering. Think I’m exaggerating? Let me put it this way. I heard that the best script ever submitted to the Nicholl Fellowship was rejected because the title wasn’t centered properly.

Yes.

I got in touch with the writer and apparently his centering was 4 and a half pixels off. In his defense, his title included a hyphen and an ellipses, which confused the matter, but you know what? That’s no excuse. He should’ve known better. You can’t have an improperly centered title page and expect this industry to take you seriously.

All of this forced me to go back a few Amateur Saturdays to find a script that DID center its title properly, and boy am I excited. This script exuded one of the most center-positive attitudes I’ve ever seen. So much so that I’m nominating it for the prestigious “Center Award,” which as you all know rewards the most centered objects of the year. It is time, my friends, to review a script that dares to care about the things that really matter. Let’s take a trip back to… The Hindenburg Alien.

It’s 1937, a year before the world lost its innocence, and when Germany graced us with the largest flying machine anyone had ever seen, the Hindenburg. We join this gargantuan airship while its loading up passengers for its impending flight. This is where we meet 20 year-old David Grant, a ship hand who’s trying to kick ass and not be a Nazi.

David is joined by his comic relief co-worker, Harry, and the demonstrably stodgy captain, Mr. Lehman, along with a host of other worker bees that make flying the Hindenburg so exciting, when it’s not bursting into flames and roasting its passengers alive that is.

Shit gets Nazi-real when a professor rolls up a giant iron box that looks like it could be a Steampunk transformer “before” picture. Following him is 19 year-old Anna, the girl of David’s dreams, who is unfortunately followed by Hans Muller, her Nazi fiancé. So much for that love connection. I’m guessing that’s nazi-gonna happen.

After the Hindenburg takes off, David wanders downstairs in time to see a co-worker, Eric, get pulled into the iron box and EATEN by whatever’s in there. David runs upstairs to tell the captain, but when they come back down, it appears that Eric is fine. OR IS HE? Eric’s acting strange, and after a bit of sleuthing, David figures out that whatever was in that box has taken the form of Eric.

David eventually finds Anna, and because she’s just so darn dreamy, he informs her of what he saw. She believes him and wants to help, but her evil fiancé, Hans, keeps hanging around and being all clingy. Those Nazis. We eventually find out that Anna is only marrying this jerk because he’s agreed to smuggle her father out of the country to safety.

While evil alien-monster thing jumps form one host to the next, David realizes that if this planet-hopper lands, there’s a good chance it’s going to spread its seed and earth as we know it will turn into an intergalactic truck stop. So David must overcome his fears and take Alien Yucky Head on. One on one. May the best… biological… living creature win.

I’m digging the concept here. Tal’s obviously been influenced by Titanic, but he knows if he takes that approach, it just becomes Titanic on the Hindenburg. And we’ve seen “Titanic on the…” films before and they never end up well (Pearl Harbor). So he wisely turns this into a sci-fi film and makes it more of a monster-in-a-box movie.

Here was my issue while reading The Hindenburg Alien though: It was too darn simplistic. And I know this might sound confusing because I’m always harping on you guys for being too complex. But rarely does ANY extreme work well, and that includes being too simplistic.

I don’t want this to come off the wrong way but “Hindenburg” felt like it was written by a third grader. That’s not to say there were a lot of spelling or grammar errors. But the grammar was devoid of any color or nuance. There was no flavor to the way anything was written, leaving the script feeling so basic that it was hard to get excited about anything.

Here’s an example: “David and Harry sneak into the deck. All is silent and still. Eric is nowhere in sight.”

You see how rudimentary and lifeless those sentences are? Even the book our romantic lead is reading is titled: “Romantic Poems.” The only title I can think of more generic than that would be, “Written Stories.”

I can overlook colorless prose sometimes if the character work or dialogue is exceptional. But both of those suffer from the same problem. Here’s a dialogue exchange from when David meets up with Anna. David: “How did you know it was me?” “Your footsteps gave you away. Quiet, but strong. Just like you.” Is it just me or does that sound like it was spoken by an animatronic automaton?

You know, it’s funny. Technically speaking, Tal does what myself and many screenwriting folks teach in regards to dialogue. Keep the lines sparse and to the point, usually under three lines. But while this sounds great in practice, if EVERY SINGLE SPOKEN LINE OF DIALOGUE is like that, it feels generic and lifeless (and worse – predictable). And plus, in the real world, everyone talks differently. Some do keep it short and to the point. But others can’t shut up. I didn’t get enough of a sense of different personalities and talking styles here. To that end, changing up the dialogue length for each character would’ve helped a ton.

But yeah, in general, we needed more color to everything. In the description, the dialogue, the backstory, the plotting. A basic plot point would be “Let’s follow Eric” and at a certain point I felt like I’d asked for a Chinese chicken salad and they’d brought me a head of lettuce and a few ketchup packets.

I will say this about The Hindenburg Alien. It’s not as simplistic as Monday’s “Free Fall,” which sold. And Tal’s got the right idea here. This is a big enough concept that it could be turned into a movie. But if he wants to improve his chances, he needs to add more complexity to the characters and the plotting, and he needs to add some color to the writing himself. I would recommend he check out Osgood Perkins’ script, “February,” for how to add color through prose, and Aaron Sorkin’s, Jobs, for tips on how to write more colorful dialogue.

Good luck, my friend. You’re on your way to something here. ☺

Screenplay link: The Hindenburg Alien

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

What I learned: Be mindful of long absences by your characters (30+ pages). You can’t just bring them back whenever. It’s very likely we’ve forgotten who they are. Or even if we remember their name, we’ve forgotten the exact circumstances by which they’re attached to the story. That’s what happened here. We meet Anna’s father, Rosen, when he arrives on the ship, but I’d forgotten about him by the time he showed up again 50 pages later. I thought to myself, “Wait, did we see him board in the opening?” I wasn’t sure. And because there were a lot of dream-scenes in The Hindenburg Alien, I thought she may have been dreaming about her father. To eliminate confusion, add another scene with Rosen somewhere between those two scenes. That way he stays prominent in our minds, and we’re not playing the “Who’s This Dude Again?” screenplay game (a game I have to play way too much!).