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: Adventure
Premise (from writer): When his mother is kidnapped and sold into slavery, the legendary fableist must overcome being a short, ugly mute and outmatch Greek philosophers and bloodthirsty kings to rescue her and save the kingdom.
Why You Should Read (from writer): If I have to sit through another movie starring a chisel chinned, barrel chested, cooler-than-christ anti-hero, I’m gonna start drinking. And when I drink, I get all existential. And when I get all existential, I go searching for myself. And when I go searching for myself, I take trips to exotic countries. And when I take trips to exotic countries, my planes mysteriously disappear. And when my planes mysteriously disappear, I end up on Lost island. As cool as that would be for about a week, please don’t let me end up on Lost island, Carson! For a change, let’s give the short and uglies of the world a chance at being heroic. And you can start right here with this inspired, true-ish tale. — I’ve always been intrigued by ancient Greek culture and stumbled upon this story in college. It is tailor-made for the big screen, but very few people know about the man behind the fables. A cute, straight forward fantasy adventure this is not. Think more along the lines of the dark and dirty original versions of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales. The Zemeckis’, Burtons, and Depps of the world would have a field day with this.
Writer: J.D. Dorsey
Details: 104 pages
Josh Gad for Aesop?
Adventure is one of those genres that I surprisingly don’t see a lot of. And it’s a great genre to write in because there aren’t many demographics out there that don’t like a good adventure. I think because Adventure is often seen as the “grown up” version of the family film, writers stay away from it. And most of the adventure stories have been folded into the animation world anyway (Up, Tintin, Shrek). It’s much cooler to write an edgy thriller or a dark comedy. Who wants to write a wussy adventure?
I think the “cooler” adventure film is ready for a comeback, though. With the exception of the Hobbit films, there hasn’t been something people over 12 can really stand by and say, “Yo, you see that latest adventure film? That was good shit.” We need our new Romancing the Stone, our new Raiders, our new Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Is Aesop that script? Only one way to know…
It’s the year 602 BC. We start the movie where anything in 602 BC should start. Greece. It’s here where we meet Aesop.
I’ll allow today’s author to describe our title character for you, since he does it better than I ever could. Aesop is “a loathsome, potbellied, misshapen-of-head, snub-nosed, swarthy, dwarfish, bandy-legged, short-armed, squint-eyed, liver-lipped, portentous monstrosity.” In other words, the guy’s not modeling toga underwear to pay the rent.
Aesop is also a mute and a coward who spends his days with his head in the clouds, dreaming about turtles and crickets and ants who can speak. He seems uninterested in reality, for reality is often so cruel. Until he meets a magically beautiful young lady named Rhodope. Something about this girl powers up Aesop’s vocal chords and just like that, he can talk!
Unfortunately, before he can head home and share his newfound powers with this family, he finds his village burning, and everyone in it taken away as slaves. Determined to get his mother back, Aesop uses his new power of speech to talk his way onto a slave boat heading for the Island of Samos.
Once there, Aesop offers up himself as a slave (for reasons that weren’t entirely clear) to a local philosopher named Xanthus. Xanthus quickly realizes how smart Aesop is, and uses him to win several town riddle-challenges, the local Samos currency for the upper class. Word of his intelligence spreads, until he comes to the attention of the King.
Turns out the kings of this land also duel each other in battles of wits and riddles, often times betting fortunes in the process. Lose a few riddle bets in a row, and you could be out a kingdom. With Aesop by his side, however, the Samos King does nothing but win. Aesop is the smartest in the land. Until he’s given an impossible riddle by the Samos King’s chief rival. Will he be able to solve it? Or will an unforeseen betrayal lead to Aesop’s undoing?
Folks, I want to make something clear right away. We got ourselves a writer here. This is a script that relishes its time and place, and makes you feel like you’re there all the way through.
The wooden slave boat docks at a relatively sophisticated harbor.
Replete with horse-drawn carriages, men and women in gowns
and tunics. A far cry from the rustic village.
From the bustle of workers unloading cages, horses, and equipment,
Aesop steps off the boat in awe.
He quickly gathers himself and notices that a similar boat rests next
to theirs, having already been unloaded.
Aesop starts for the city, but the Slave Trader quickly grips his collar.
SLAVE TRADER
You have duties, swine. Tend to those cages
there. Be useful in action if not in appearance!
The young man lumbers towards his duty, startled to see Mastor
dragging the beaten and bloodied body of Enops down a wooden plank.
If you want to read really good writing, download this script at the end of my review. You won’t be disappointed. Now as you know from reading Scriptshadow, if it were all about the writing, there’d be a lot more spec sales. Screenwriting is more about the storytelling though, and it’s here where Aesop needs some work. The script changes tone, changes story, changes focus, leaving you unsure what it is or what it’s trying to say.
The most jarring change for me, was in Aesop himself. He starts off as this meek bullied little mute, someone we immediately love and root for. Then, 30 pages in, he learns how to speak and all of a sudden he’s a nasty little smartass for the remainder of the script.
Completely changing your hero during your story is a risky proposition to say the least. I’ve seen it done before, like in American Beauty. Much like Aesop, Lester Burnham is a pushover who stops giving a shit. But his change is clearly motivated. We watch as he gets tired of being pushed around. So we understand why he transforms into someone who refuses to take it anymore. In contrast, I’m not sure why the ability to talk all of a sudden turns Aesop into a wiseass.
The tone wavered as well. We start off with this cute little story about a mute young man trying to make it in an unaccepting world by creating imaginary animal friends he can communicate with. Everything’s very G-rated. Then later, Aesop is getting raped (albeit comically) by his owner’s wife. We’re talking about a man famous for children’s fables here. I don’t think you want any sex scenes in this script (or “urinating while walking” scenes).
Another problem is that it took me half the script to figure out what the actual story was, which is never a good sign. At first I thought this was about the struggles of a young mute. Then I thought it was about a man trying to save his mother. Eventually I realized it was about an extremely smart individual, captured by a king, who uses his wits to stay alive. You never want it to take that long for the main story in your screenplay to emerge. It leaves the reader extremely frustrated.
There were also too many unexplained things. You can get away with not explaining maybe one major element, but any more than that and the reader’s going to turn on you. I couldn’t figure out, for example, if the animals were just talking in Aesop’s mind or they were really talking. I was 80% sure it was in his head, but with something as crazy as animals talking, there can’t be any misunderstanding there. It needs to be 100%.
I also didn’t understand what led to Aesop being able to talk. He met this girl, but why would a random girl give him the ability to speak? That was unclear. And why is it that the bad guys took everyone in Aesop’s village as slaves, however when he comes to their boat and demands to go with them, they don’t take him as a slave as well? Is there some 600 B.C. rule that states you’re allowed to catch people in the wild, but once they’re in the city they’re off-limits? And why did Aesop offer himself up as a slave? I think it was to find his mom. But how would becoming a slave help him find his mom? Wouldn’t the freedom of being able to go anywhere you wanted give you a better shot at finding her?
I’ve also read enough of these “fictional writer biopics” now to know that the better you can integrate the writer’s influences (which led to their famous works), the more powerful the story will be. The tortoise and the grasshopper and the ant seemed to pop in and out of the story with no rhyme or reason. Much like the rest of the script, there were no rules governing their arrival. They needed to have a more direct influence on Aesop, to be more crucial to the story itself. I saw them more as announcers or distant observers of his life.
Despite all that, there were good things going on here. I maintain that one of the hardest things to do in screenwriting is give us a protagonist we won’t forget. You read this script, I guarantee you, you won’t forget Aesop. He’s that memorable.
Dorsey really puts us back in Ancient Greece too. From the descriptions to the sounds to the characters, I felt like I was there. A lot of that was due to the dialogue, which was great. Pick out any page here, read the dialogue, and you’ll see what I mean. “So you see, that is why the people of Samos care so much for reputation. It informs us. It puts us in position to leverage outcomes. When I heard that my guards found not one but two slaves with particular familiarity with Aesop the monstrosity, well I couldn’t help but inquire—“ I don’t know. You just get the feeling this guy knows what he’s doing.
But I’m very frustrated by “Aesop.” We obviously have an amazing talent here in Dorsey. But he needs to spend some time in the Structure Garden. This script needs focus. Aesop isn’t really trying to find his mom after awhile, which means he’s an inactive character imprisoned by a king. I’m not sure that and a handful of riddles is enough of an engine to drive an entire second act. We need a more dominant goal and we need Aesop to be a little more active in pursuing it. Or we need a succession of goals, each clear and strong, with high stakes attached to each of them, not unlike the way Star Wars is structured.
The script also needs consistency. It starts out one way and turns out another. The tone is messy. The imaginary world and the real world need to be better explained and intertwined. These are all doable things for someone this talented, but they take time.
Regardless of what happens with this script, I want to know what Dorsey is working on from this point forward. I really like him as a writer.
Script link: Aesop The Courageous
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: We need someone to bring the true adventure spec back. I’m predicting whoever does is going to make a lot of money. Who’s going to do it? Pitches in the comments? Or submit your adventure to Amateur Friday.
“If you think, for just one second, that you’re getting a smile out of me, you are LOCO, ESE!”
Today I’d like to do something different. I talk a lot about concept on this site, coming up with an exciting idea that’s easy to market, but concept is nothing unless it’s paired with a memorable main character. In fact, one can argue that people come to the theater more to see the characters than they do the movies. An idea is merely a construct, a vessel to tell your story. But a character, a character is a “real person,” someone who can be our best friend, a role model, or somebody we see ourselves in. In that sense, you want to give both the concept and character equal weight. They must both be great.
Unfortunately, whereas a concept often comes to us out of the blue, creating a memorable character takes time. You need to figure out their history, their fears, their flaws, their views, their secrets, their relationships, and anything else you can about them. You also need to make them relatable, identifiable, interesting, and most of the time, likable. Most writers don’t spend enough time doing this. They think if their hero’s dishing out cool one-liners, they’ve done their job. But creating a truly memorable character that resonates with readers (and hopefully, audiences) takes a ton of work. So what I’d like to do is look at the top 10 movies from last year and their main characters. I’m going to highlight those characters’ key qualities and see if there aren’t some commonalities we can identify which we can then apply to our own characters. I recommend you pay attention. These are the movies audiences spent the most money on last year. Obviously, they’re relating to these characters for a reason.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Main Character: Katniss Everdeen
Character Breakdown: Just like the first movie, Katniss is painted as the underdog, which is one of the easiest ways to get an audience to root for a character. She’s also great at what she does (the whole bow and arrow thing) which audiences love (someone who’s mastered their skill). She’s smart, craftily getting herself out of tough situations. And she’s selfless, constantly worried about others over herself, another quality of likable heroes. The only thing that trips me up about Katniss, something I’m surprised audiences didn’t care about, was that she was devoid of any personality. Not to mention a bit grumpy. Maybe the reason it still works is because those qualities are motivated. People are dying. She can’t save them all. You’re not exactly trying out your latest stand-up routine when faced with everyone you know being killed. But yeah, it is strange to see the hero with the least personality at the top of this list.
Iron Man 3
Main Character: Tony Stark
Character Breakdown: The charming rogue is a proven audience favorite that’s been around forever. Just like in real life, we like people who are charming. So if you’re good at writing charming characters, you probably want to incorporate one into your script. Another big thing about Tony Stark is the wish fulfillment factor. I’m not referring to the superhero element, but rather Tony’s attitude. Tony Stark is confident as hell and doesn’t give a shit about what anybody says. We all wish we could be that person. So when we’re watching Stark, it’s like we’re watching who we want to be. That’s exciting. Note, however, that this doesn’t work if the character isn’t also charming. If they’re an asshole, then this “confident and doesn’t give a shit,” attitude can actually backfire on them. You always need good traits to balance out the bad ones.
Frozen
Main Character: Anna
Character Breakdown: With these traditional animation films, it’s imperative that the hero be likable. Anna is sweet, kind, adorkable, and just like Katniss, an underdog. So they definitely covered all their bases. She’s also fearless. She’s too young and inexperienced to pull off the job she’s been given, yet she goes after it anyway (audiences love characters who aren’t afraid to take on tough tasks). And remember that it’s not just what’s on the outside that makes a character. It’s what’s going on inside. And with Anna, she’s dealing with a ton of conflicting feelings stemming from the trauma of losing her sister. What’s going on in your character’s life that’s affecting them?
Despicable Me 2
Main Character: Gru
Character Breakdown: Out of all the protagonists in the Top 10, Gru was the riskiest to write. He’s actually a villain (or started as one in the first film), but like any “bad” character, if you make them funny enough, we forgive them (balance out the bad with the good!), and Gru’s “perpetually annoyed” sense of humor keeps us laughing throughout. He also loves children. And it’s pretty hard to hate a character who loves children. The writers also do a good job of highlighting what’s missing in Gru’s life (a woman). If you put a huge emphasis on what it is your hero’s missing, we, as an audience, inherently want to stick around to see if they get it.
Man of Steel
Main Character: Clark Kent
Character Breakdown: Superman is the ultimate wish-fulfillment character. It’s why he’s the most popular superhero of all time. We all wish we could be Superman. On a deeper level, this version of Superman explores themes of having to hide who you really are. That’s a battle that speaks to a lot of people, and therefore very relatable. Remember that if you can make your hero relatable in some way, readers are going to latch onto him.
Gravity
Main Character: Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock)
Character Breakdown: If we don’t like Ryan, not a single aspect of this movie works. The whole thing depends on us wanting her to survive. How did the writers tackle this? They had Ryan recently lose a child. Not only do we feel sympathy for someone who experiences loss, but notice how that event informs every choice Ryan makes. Yes, this movie is about a woman trying to survive. But it’s also about a woman deciding if she wants to live. Each choice tells us that she wants to keep going, that life is still worth living. And it’s not always easy. There are times, like in the Chinese space capsule, where she doesn’t think it’s worth it anymore. Gravity reminds us that the external battle is fun, but it’s the internal battle that really draws us in to a character.
Monsters University
Main Character: Mike
Character Breakdown: Well lookie what we have here. Another animated film, another underdog playing the protag. Mike’s character also embodies a lot of struggles people are going through in their daily lives. He wants to fit in. He wants to be accepted. These are things we all want, so we feel close to Mike. One final thing to note is that Mike isn’t a sad sack whiner about his underdog position in life. The underdog character usually works best if he’s a fighter. What we love about Mike is that despite all his limitations, he still tries his hardest.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Main Character: Bilbo
Character Breakdown: Even J.R.R. Tolkien, who wrote this book back in 1937, understood the value of an underdog. Both Bilbo and Frodo are the ultimate underdogs. They’re the smallest people in the land, tasked with going on the biggest journeys. The most memorable moments in the Hobbit films to me, are when Bilbo is outmatched, yet still figures out a way to prevail. Whether it be from giant spiders or a game of wits. Tolkien also uses Bilbo as a way to explore themes of temptation (the ring!), which is obviously something we all relate to. I will say, however, that out of these 10 entries, Bilbo is the least interesting protagonist of the bunch. The Hobbit films have always been about their immense cast of characters. They’re not as “hero-driven,” which is probably why they work despite the lack of a truly memorable hero.
Fast & Furious 6
Main Character: Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel)
Character Breakdown: A character that tends to work a lot is the “dangerous charmer.” Think of them as the “bad boy” girls are always attracted to. They’re fun at first, but ultimately screw you over. That kind of danger is exciting to the ladies, and exciting to us moviegoers as well, which is why we love Dominic Toretto.
Oz The Great and Powerful
Main Characters: Oz
Character Breakdown: Oz isn’t exactly the most likable character. He’s a liar and a cheat. But the great thing about writing a fallible character with major flaws, is that you get someone a lot more complex than your garden variety hero. Not everything’s on the surface, like, say, Anna, from Frozen. Which means you have more places to go with the character. Just remember, this kind of character still needs a sliver of likability somewhere, so we don’t write him off as an asshole. With Oz, it’s his charm. If you can pull that combination off (a hero with issues who still has a sliver of likability), you’ll probably have a hero that wins readers over.
IN SUMMARY
So what did we learn here? Obviously, underdogs play well with mainstream audiences. Who doesn’t like to see the little guy succeed? We got hooked on this device all the way back when our mothers read us “The Little Engine That Could” as a child. So if you can work an underdog into your script, do it. I also realized that there were a lot more “non-traditional” heroes in the top 10 than I’d thought there’d be. We have Oz, Dominic, Tony Stark, and Gru. Goes to show you don’t need to write an angel hero to appeal to the masses. AND, if you’re going with the not-so-likable main character, it’s a great idea to make them charming. Charm helps mask a lot of a character’s more damning traits. Finally, I learned that there’s a bunch of ways to skin a cat. You can’t plop down a universal hero that works in every story. Each story has its own set of requirements and therefore its own unique set of characters. Once you figure out what kind of story you’re writing, ask which kind of hero best fits inside (the rogue, the goodie-two-shoes, the trickster) and that’ll be the character you go with.
Genre: Period
Premise: In 1929, the owner of a logging business marries an ambitious young woman named Serena who becomes obsessed with the bastard child he had from a previous woman.
About: Based on the book by the same name, Serena stars mega-celebs and frequent collaborators Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence. The film was actually shot back in 2012, and is yet to be released due to (according to the production company) a very deliberate editing process. Christopher Kyle adapted the book, whose last credit before Serena was Oliver Stone’s Alexander. Don’t be worried for Kyle though. Since there were 17 cuts of Alexander made, he got paid for each one. Word is Stone will come out with another version later this summer titled, “Alexander: The Rethought but Carefully Considered Semi-Violent Cut” and Kyle will get paid again. Ron Rash, who wrote the novel, has written several books and lots of poetry. His most recent book was 2012’s The Cove, about a family who experiences a set of grave misfortunes.
Writer: Christopher Kyle (based on the book by Ron Rash)
Details: 124 pages – August 9, 2009 draft
Some longtime Scriptshadow advice: Don’t write a period piece on spec unless a) you are SURE you can get an A-list actor (they’re the only way these get made) and b) you know it’s going to win an Oscar. It’s the only way these movies have any sort of success.
Editing rumors aside, I’m guessing the real reason Serena hasn’t been released yet is because they’re trying to figure out how to market it. You have two of the biggest movie stars in the world. But they’re in completely unfamiliar roles. And you’re selling a movie about logging in the 1920s. Doesn’t matter if you’re the biggest marketing genius in the world. You’re going to have trouble with that one.
This is why I tell you to look into the future BEFORE you write your script. Ask the hard question: Are marketers going to have an easy time marketing my movie? Or a hard time? Cause if it’s a hard time, you probably shouldn’t write it. Not unless you’re Christopher Kyle and you’re getting paid on assignment for it.
But even if you get past the obvious obstacles – like trying to market this kind of film – it’s just really tough to WRITE period pieces. The further back you go in time, the slower life was, and movies work best when the story’s moving quickly. So the elements are always working against each other when you’re trying to write one of these. The period is trying to slow you down, but you want to speed up. It can be a very frustrating.
Don’t get me wrong. It can be done. But you have to be on your A-game. Let’s see which game Serena brought to the table.
It’s 1929 and George Pemberton is plowing down trees along the North Carolina coast, looking to build a logging empire (I guess from the timber he just cut?). But apparently, chopping down timber could use a little Tinder (app that is). There aren’t a lot of females around. So George starts boinking a 16 year old girl named Rachel and accidentally knocks her up! (Is there an app for that?)
His father dies soon after so he heads home to sell the house, and when he comes back, he’s married to a psycho woman obsessed with hawks named Serena. No really! Serena spends the bulk of her time training a hawk. Serena also wants to rule this timber business with an iron fist, and therefore it doesn’t take her long to start bossing everyone around. Naturally, everyone just loves her for it.
Serena becomes aware of Rachel carrying Pemberton’s bastard child, but doesn’t think much of it. That is until her own pregnancy goes awry and she’s told she’ll never get pregnant again. This inspires a rage inside Serena, and she freaking orders a hit on Rachel and her little boy!
This is where the screenplay makes an interesting choice. Rachel and the boy actually get away at the end of the second act. Because Serena couldn’t kill them, she turns her rage towards Pemberton. As such, she meticulously sets up a hunting “accident” that will happen the next time her husband goes hunting. Will he figure it out though before it’s too late? Or will he perish under the psychopathic rage of…. SERENA!
I’ll say this about Serena. I’ve never read anything like it.
Here’s the question I always ask with period pieces though: Why do we need to tell this story in this time? What is it about 1929, specifically, that necessitates the story be told then? Because if there’s nothing that happens in the story that’s specific to that time, why not just save a ton of cash and tell the story in the present?
I’m looking at “woman gets jealous of husband’s bastard child and wants to kill it” and thinking, “Why not just tell that story today?” There doesn’t need to be any logging to tell it. Look at a movie like Titanic. Why does that movie need to be told then? Because that’s the only time it could’ve been told!
I guess an argument can be made that, if we tell this story today, it’ll feel like all the other “psycho wife/gf” movies. By setting it in 1929 at a logging facility, that’s what makes it unique. I suppose that makes sense. But I still think if you’re going to go that far back, why not intertwine the setting into the story in a way where this only could’ve happened then?
Another problem was the extreme emotional detachment all the characters showed. We never see Pemberton court Serena so we don’t know why they fell for each other. This was the biggest surprise in the script to me. Why wouldn’t you show these two meet (we sort of do in a brief flashback late in the story, but it’s too late)? Their relationship is the engine that drives the story and because we don’t see how they meet, they feel like two strangers working together. They’re so cold to one another, more interested in the business than the relationship. When they have sex, it’s raging angry sex, not tender love-making.
This makes Serena’s jealousy later on all the more puzzling. We don’t really see her love Pemberton outside of the words she says to him (words alone never work – you must SHOW NOT TELL), so it’s confusing why she’d get so worked up about the whole bastard child ordeal.
Then there’s Rachel, who Pemberton has no feelings for either! Their sex is “mechanical” when we see it. And when she has his son, he’s intrigued, but by no means interested. Wouldn’t this have worked better if he had some feelings for Rachel? A part of him regrets leaving her? Serena could’ve felt that, and then her desire to kill them would’ve actually felt motivated. Here, she’s just doing it because she’s a psychopath with a lot of issues.
The more I think about it, the more I believe the lack of emotion was the script’s undoing. How come nobody actually cares about anybody in this script??? Everyone is a zombie, a stiff. Nobody emotes. Nobody lets loose. Nobody cares. Characters without life aren’t characters.
I do give credit to Kyle for keeping things lean. Despite it being a period piece script, the action lines were nice and tight (most were 2 lines or less). His descriptions were strong. I didn’t know what a logging office looked like until I read: They’re like “boxcars on stilts.” And you’d get these winner lines, such as when they were losing all these lives due to heinous body-severing logging accidents. One official tells him, “If only I could stitch together all the severed limbs, I could make you a new man every week or two.”
And really, some of the early drama, with (spoiler) Pemberton murdering his boss before he could underhand him, was exciting. But after awhile, it became unclear what the script was about, until Serena came up with her murder plot, and I never thought that was big enough to carry an entire movie. I hope they figure it out in editing, but this draft wasn’t for me.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Do not hide “YEARS LATER” or “MONTHS LATER” in a slugline. Big time jumps must be made CLEAR to the reader, since there’s nothing more confusing than reading and then, all of a sudden, nothing makes sense, then five minutes pass and you realize it’s because a time jump occurred that you were unaware of. For the most part, readers skim over sluglines, so they’ll miss any time jumps at the end of them. Instead, add them after the slugline, and BOLD THEM. It’s crucial enough information that you have to draw attention to it.
INT. BOBBY’S BATHROOM – DAY
Title: 307 years later
Genre: TV Pilot – Horror/Procedural
Premise: When the Governor’s daughter goes missing, the FBI believes the Occult may be involved.
About: This project was shepherded by Michael Bay, with X-Files alum James Wong writing. The multi-talented Wong also produced and wrote Final Destination 3, and wrote for American Horror Story. The project was set up at A&E, who ultimately passed on it, despite Josh Lucas starring. See, this is what I don’t understand about TV. You have Michael Bay shepherding a project. A guy who’s responsible for the 5th biggest franchise of the past decade. You have a movie star in the lead role. And a tiny network like A&E says, “Ehh, not interested.” Is this because it’s understood Bay is only adding his name to the show and not actually involved? What’s the reasoning here? TV guys? Help. I guess the show could’ve just been bad. But it sounds pretty cool. I guess it’s time to find out the truth.
Writer: James Wong
Details: 7-26-2012 draft (5th draft) – 52 pages
A&E seems unsure about how far they want to dip their toes in the scripted waters. The network known for reality hits Duck Dynasty, Storage Wars and Hoarders, only has one scripted show that I’ve ever heard of, the well-received “Bates Motel.” It’s only other show, a dark-looking drama starring Chloë Sevigny called “Those Who Kill,” was recently shuttered off to its sister network, LMN, which I’m guessing you’ve never heard of. Cause I sure haven’t.
That makes me believe Occult never had a shot at getting on the air in the first pace. Which is too bad. Because it sounds interesting and Wong is an established writer. Let’s see if a good show got the shaft from a network who wimped out of the scripted television derby, or if the script was never up to snuff in the first place.
We’re in New Orleans (where everything seems to be set these days – ever since they started offering all those filmmaking tax breaks), and LSU student and Governor’s daughter Alana Hutchins is out partying. She leaves the club with Abercrombie Model Dude, and while they’re walking to their cars, someone jumps out of the forest and snatches Alana away. Uh oh.
Naturally, the New Orleans FBI unit is all over this. So much so that they bring back suspended agent Dolan, a guy with a mysterious past (if you’re writing a TV show, at least one of your leads better have a mysterious past!). They team Dolan up with Bureau headache Noa Blair, a woman obsessed with the Occult. It’s her opinion that these naughty demon-worshipping clans had something to do with this.
Sure enough, Blair and Dolan happen upon an Occult sacrifice ritual, which they’re able to stop, but not before a strange feeling hits Dolan. What Dolan doesn’t know is that he’s just been possessed. Not the best form to be in when you still haven’t found your victim. That’s right, the sacrificial lamb of the ritual was yet another woman. Alana is still missing!
The duo follows a couple of basic leads (some credit card purchases, old acquaintances) and eventually runs into this guy who speaks a language that doesn’t even exist! While Dolan continues to feel stranger and stranger (he starts experiencing things that may or may not be real), Blair uses Mr. Gibberish to figure out where Alana is, who they’re able to save, just in time.
Blair then uses her face time with the Governor to ask for a special Occult Crimes Unit on the FBI. Request granted. And thus, our series begins.
These procedural dealios are tough. They’re a little easier to pull off in movie form, I feel, because you only have to come up with one big snazzy story. You can really take your time and figure out a way to make the investigation special.
But with procedural TV, you have to do it week in and week out. There are only so many ways to have your characters follow Lead A to Lead B to Lead C, and finally find the killer. Which is why I don’t generally like these shows. Once you’ve seen about five episodes of the genre, you’ve seen them all. From then on, it’s the same old shit.
That’s why I liked Silence of the Lambs so much. It wasn’t your typical “Lead A to Lead B to Lead C” scenario. They had this X-Factor in Hannibal who you weren’t used to. That rhythm of following leads was thrown off by the fact that Hannibal was giving our hero advice, and after awhile, taking center stage in the story. At a certain point, you weren’t sure if you cared more about Hannibal’s storyline or Clarice’s. It was different. It was fresh.
On the TV end, that’s the trick you’re looking for. Think of a spin on the genre that’s different enough that all those “old” scenarios become new again. “Occult” attempts to do this by having a demon possess one of its main characters, Dolan. Now, whenever the partners come onto a scene, there’s this x-factor of Dolan being able to sense things, being able to use his possession to discover clues. The question becomes, is that enough?
I don’t think so. Actually, it kind of backfires. I like it when characters have to figure shit out themselves, when the odds are stacked against them and the only way for them to thrive is to outsmart the baddies. When information is just handily given to them via the demon’s powers, it’s kind of boring and feels like a cheat. It erases all the drama from the scene. “Oh, the clue is over there.” How is that interesting?
In other words, Occult stays a lot closer to the traditional format than it tries to invent a new one. And this is something I’ve actually been battling lately. More and more people are sending me pilots, and a lot of them feel like shows I’ve already seen a thousand times before.
Just the other day, for example, someone sent me a sitcom about family life, and my big note to him was that it felt too familiar. That we weren’t breaking any new ground. If he wanted to stand out, he needed something fresh.
But a few minutes later I turned on the TV and saw an ad for “The Millers,” a show about a grown man living with his parents. In other words, the same sitcom they’ve been making for the past 20 years. I thought, “Do I have it wrong?” Maybe TV audiences enjoy that comforting familiarity a familiar set-up brings. It certainly makes it easier to relate to the characters and the situations.
The more I thought about it, the more I could see that making sense to TV people. With a movie, you have to physically get up and drive to the theater (and pay money!). So they have to give you something new and exciting to entice you. But with TV, the viewer is already on the couch. They don’t have to go anywhere. And it’s free. So maybe familiarity IS the best route? I don’t know. You TV folks looking for new shows, help me out here.
Whatever the case, all I can say about Occult is that I wasn’t drawn into it because of its familiarity. It was yet another straight-forward procedural. I wanted that HBI – that hot beef injection of something unique that made the show stand out. The occult stuff sort of did that. But it wasn’t game-changing enough to disrupt the typical “Lead A to Lead B to Lead C” formula.
Now keep in mind, I don’t watch procedurals. I don’t watch CSI or NCIS or LFYK. So I may not be the target audience here. But my gut tells me this needed something extra to make it worth going to series for.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Whatever TV show you’re thinking of writing, create a setting, or give the concept a twist, that makes every situation we’re used to seeing in these shows feel fresh. For example, in Pushing Daisies, the main character was able to bring the dead back to life for a minute. That made every single procedural episode different from what we’ve seen before – our detectives could actually communicate with the dead victim of every crime. It’s my belief that this gives you a better shot at selling your pilot than if you give them the same ole same ole.
Genre: Religious Epic/Action
Premise: (from IMDB) A man is chosen by God to undertake a momentous mission of rescue before an apocalyptic flood destroys the world.
About: Noah was written and directed by Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan, The Wrestler) and co-written by Ari Handal. As most religious pictures do, this film is dividing audiences, most of whom haven’t even seen it (I love when the religious community does this – “Don’t go see this!” “Have you seen it?” “Uhh, no. But that’s irrelevant!”). Ari Handel is a longtime Aronofsky collaborator. He received a “story by” credit for Aronofsky’s most ambitious film, The Fountain, but Noah is his first full screenplay credit. Predictions for Noah’s box office this past weekend were all over the map, with many predicting it would tank big time. But the film did a respectable 45 million dollars.
Writers: Darren Aronofsky and Ari Handel (based on the book “The Bible” written by Moses, David, Ethan and others).
Details: 262 pages!!!!!!!!! (without pictures, about 130 pages) — early draft
Awhile back I said, “Don’t write ‘religious’ scripts. They don’t sell.” Then ‘religious projects’ become all the rage. Should we chalk that up to the, “Nobody knows anything,” William Goldman quote that writers use in defense of all their strange ideas? “I’m going to continue to push my coming-of-age story about a man frustrated with his 20s because… nobody knows anything!” No offense but, don’t do that. Please.
Here’s how Hollywood works. One day, nobody’s buying religious scripts. Then a huge director who’s had a nice little streak going – somebody like Darren Aronofsky – says he wants to make a big Noah epic. Everybody’s a little nervous but no one wants to say no to a talent like Aronofsky so they say, “Okay, I guess we can jump on board with that.”
The news circulates around town that Aronofsky’s next movie is a big religious epic, and all of a sudden, guess what? It’s okay to buy big religious epics! Whether the other studios want competing projects, or to be prepared if Noah succeeds so they can jump on the heat, they buy these scripts and start developing them.
My point is – there IS some logic to it. It’s not like one day everyone starts buying religious specs because “Nobody knows anything.” There’s almost always a cause and effect going on.
Which leads us back to “Noah” and its heaping 262 page retelling of the epic story (well, not really 262 pages. There are a lot of weird pictures in it and if you take those out, it’s only about 130 pages). I should preface this by saying I’ve never read the Bible and, in fact, had my Sunday School teacher come to my parents and tell them, “I don’t think this boy should be in Sunday School anymore.” In other words, I’ve been officially rejected by God. This very well may factor into my review.
So in Aronofsky’s version of “Noah,” we have a guy named Noah. Noah is a tree-hugger. He hates how careless we’ve become with our land. Not only are we knocking everything down and dispersing our trash everywhere, but we’re killing all our animals too! Noah, it turns out, is also a big-time vegetarian. He refuses to munch the meat.
Noah preaches this gospel to his family, two boys (Shem and Ham), a baby girl, and an adopted girl, Ila, who was left for dead after her village was slaughtered. Everyone looks up to Noah so they follow in line, even when he claims to have been contacted by God, who happened to mention that he’s going to destroy the world.
Noah believes he’s been chosen to save all the animals on the planet, so he convinces his family to build an animal Ark for when the floods come. Since this takes up the majority of his time, Noah’s unaware that Ila takes a liking to his son, Shem. Possibly because Noah’s such an animal freak, Shem and Ila learn about the birds and the bees, and the next thing you know: preggers!
While Noah’s building the Ark, an evil warlord named Akkad keeps bothering him for a spot on his boat, going so far as to sick his army on the resistant Noah. Thing is, Noah’s buddies are these huge 6-armed monster things who ward Akkad’s army off.
But eventually the rains come and Akkad is able to get on the ship as it shoots off to sea. It’s here where Noah has another vision – this one that he needs to kill his family off (in a very humane, systematic way of course) so that there will be no more humans on the planet, just animals. It’s a grand plan, but ruined when he finds out that Ila is pregnant with his grandchild. Will Noah finally come around? Or will he stop humanity by killing off his only grandkid? Oh yeah, and what about that Akkad guy? What nasty things does he have in store? Check out “Noah” to find out.
I’ll be the first to admit that Aronofsky is one of those filmmakers who brings so much to the table stylistically, that you can’t judge his scripts the same way you can judge scripts like “Non-stop.” You really have to see an Aronofsky film to make a final judgment. However, I do have some thoughts on the script itself.
First off though, I have some questions for the religious folks. Do people really believe that the earth used to have giants and 6-armed monsters and talking snakes? Why did these things die off and why isn’t there any evidence of them? I guess they may have died off in this flood? Is that the story? Still, if animals used to be able to talk, why can’t they talk anymore? Do religious folks have an answer to this? I have to be honest, it all sounds a little silly to me.
But even if you can get past that, “Noah” is still a strange read. Noah himself is kind of a nut bag. He has a nice little Save the Cats moment early on (yup, I did the plural thing – cause it’s Noah) where he saves this Bison from sure death. And his general attitude towards animals makes us feel all warm and fuzzy towards the bearded one.
But dude, what’s up with wanting to kill your family off? Don’t you think that’s a little extreme? There’s this moment that comes in every script where your main character has “the choice.” It’s the most difficult choice he’ll ever be presented with in life – his “Sophie’s Choice,” if you will – and it should include the thing he cares most about and the thing that is ultimately right.
So here, when Ila’s babies are born (spoiler alert – she has twins!), Noah can either kill them (so there will be no more chance of reproduction) or let them live. He believes so much in a human-free world, that he really really really wants to kill his grandchildren. But in the end, he just can’t.
Here’s my problem with this choice – we know there’s no way in Hell that Noah’s going to kill two babies. He just isn’t. So the choice is devoid of any drama. And I think this problem stems from giving Noah a ridiculous stance to begin with – the guy wants to kill off his own family??? Come on. No audience is ever going to believe that Noah’s capable of doing such a thing. Therefore, any further story elements that try to build off of this are bound to fail.
The structure for this script was also really wonky. The first 70 pages (35 pages w/o pictures) are dedicated to getting to know Noah and his family. We then jump forward 10 years, and the Ark is 80% finished. Then at around page 150 (roughly page 80 w/o pictures), we’re off in our Ark.
Since, up to that point, most of the script was about building the Ark, the story has to reset. Where does it go from here? What’s the engine that’s driving it? Unfortunately, nothing really. They only kind of try to look for land. Therefore it becomes all about Ila’s pregnancy. And, as I stated above, that storyline doesn’t hold any water.
To be honest, this story was going to be a clusterfrick to wrangle in no matter what they did. The building of the Ark was always going to take a long time, forcing the screenwriters to condense time whenever possible. And whenever you condense time, you impose an artificiality onto the story. You can get away with it a couple of times. And you can use tricks to distract us from time jumps (Forrest Gump does a good job of this). But at a certain point, if you have too many jumps, the script starts to feel like a broken record, scratching and sputtering and starting back up again.
That was my problem here. There was no rhythm to the story. They probably should have gone to one extreme or the other. Either make the entire script about building the Ark, with the climax being the beginnings of the rain, or get them on that Ark by the end of the first act, and then build a story around them on the sea (probably trying to find land again). Aronofsky tried to do both, and I think that was its undoing.
I will give this to Aronofsky: He did something different. I would much rather see this movie than the super-safe G-rated Bible Belt Productions version of Noah, where everyone would have been squeaky clean and perfect. These characters here had a lot of baggage to hold onto, and that at least made them readable. Still, the weird structure, the half-fantasy element, combined with a psychopathic Noah turned me off.
[ ] what the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: Try to avoid writing scripts where your story completely reboots. “Noah” was so focused on one thing in the beginning (building this Ark), that the story lost its footing once it moved past that. No pun attended, but after that boat left the dock, this script was lost at sea.
What I learned 2: If you’re going to include pictures in your script, make sure their presentation looks professional. This is the second script I’ve read this month that had pictures in it, and in both cases, the pictures are haphazardly thrown up onto the page. It looks sloppy, which makes the script look sloppy. Use some uniformity, some placement plan, some technique. It goes a long way.
