Today’s script will hopefully answer the age-old question, how is he the “lone” ranger if he has a partner?

Genre: Action-Adventure/Western
Premise: When a corrupt sheriff takes over a hidden silver mine, a lone Texas Ranger and a local Indian named Tonto must team up to stop him.
About: Okay, this is not the draft that you’ll see in theaters. This is actually the draft that was written in 2009, when The Lone Ranger was set to be a really big movie. But then Disney got scared and canceled the movie, only allowing it back once the script was rewritten to drastically reduce the budget. So that’s what the writers did. And maybe this is why those trailers look so generic. They likely had to get rid of a couple of really big set pieces to get the price down. As a result, The Lone Ranger comes into 2013 as one of the summer’s more questionable entries. It just doesn’t feel like one of those “must see” films. Of course, as one astute Scriptshadow commenter mentioned, you can never count out “The Depp Factor.” We’ll see if Johnny Miracle can save this film from being one of summer’s big underachievers when it’s released tomorrow.
Writers: Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio (based on the radio series created by George W. Trendle and Fran Striker)
Details: March 29, 2009 draft – 125 pages

I’ve always looked up to Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio. They were a huge inspiration when it came to writing about screenwriting. Their Wordplayer Blog, at one point, was the only real place to find quality articles on screenwriting. They’re also incredibly wealthy and successful screenwriters who came to Hollywood with a 5 year plan, made their first sale way ahead of schedule, and have been kicking ass ever since (well, except for Treasure Planet, of course).

With that said, I’ve always been a little disappointed in them. They spend so much time working on these Disney movies that I’m not sure I know what a Ted Elliot and Teddy Rossio screenplay looks like. These guys have been such cogs in the Disney machine that they’ve never written anything for themselves. After reading John Favreau’s, “Chef” (which I reviewed in my newsletter), which was basically about Favreau realizing he needed to write for himself again, it seems insane that we’ve never seen a film from these guys that they created on their own.

Easy for me to say, right? It ain’t hard to call out safe screenwriting when you’re not the one making 5 million a film. I guess I have to remember that everyone successful in Hollywood is operating out of fear, fear that one day they’ll stop being asked to write or direct or act for millions of dollars. When those jobs dry up, THAT’S when you take your chances. Because that’s when you NEED to take chances. But until then?  Why wouldn’t you take the money?   Which leads us to The Lone Ranger, a script (or a draft of the script) that is every bit the prototype for safe screenwriting.

Texas Ranger John Reid has just stumbled onto one hell of a crime scene. An entire train full of people has been killed. So he takes a team of fellow rangers and heads to a nearby town, the only town that our murderer (or murderers) could’ve run off to. Once there, he finds a semi ghost town, with a few suspicious characters manning the local shops.

This leads him to the town’s half-crazy Sheriff, Latham Cole, a man so bizarre he’s placed a full-on locomotive in the middle of town (he figures by doing so, the tracks will have to come to him). We can’t tell if Latham Cole is good or bad but it doesn’t really matter because after their meeting, the murderer of all those train passengers, Butch Cavendish, pops out and kills all the Rangers except for Reid, leaving him to die.

But he doesn’t die! That’s because his mysterious soon-to-be-partner, Tonto, shows up and nurses him back to health. Tonto mostly spits out vague “wisdom,” which annoys Reid, but he can’t really get mad at the guy who saved his life. And actually, Tonto wants to help him get back at this Cavendish guy, but on one condition: Reid help him kill Latham Cole (who Tonto’s convinced is currently being possessed by an evil spirit). Reid agrees, in part because Cavendish has kidnapped his sister-in-law and nephew.

Soon After, Cavendish and Latham join forces and head to an old silver mine that Latham had been prepping, and begin readying it for operation again. Which means, of course, that Reid (now The Lone Ranger) and Tonto, must stop it! The End.

Man, what a disappointing script this was. Here’s the biggest lesson I’d take away from it. Don’t update something that can’t be updated – something that’s old news. I mean let’s be real. The Lone Ranger and Tonto are boring. They were created for a different time. Heck, they were born on radio! Neither of these two characters are relevant today and you feel it in every single page.

There’s a reason you didn’t see any classic Johnny Depp zingers in The Lone Ranger trailer. There are none. Tonto is a stereotypical Native American Indian that offers sage wisdom. That’s all he does. The whole movie. That’s the extent of his character is the sage-wisdom-offering guy. Naturally, with neither of the two lead characters being interesting, this movie was dead from the get-go.

But then you have the plot. And here’s my issue with Rossio and Elliot. These guys LOVE changing goals during their scripts. They’re never going to give you a clean narrative like Raiders Of The Lost Ark (i.e. “Get the Ark”). It’s going to start off as a murder mystery, then someone wants revenge, then someone’s sister-in-law is kidnapped, so they’re after her, and then there’s a spirit in one of the bad guys, so they’re after him, and then they get the sister-in-law back, and then there’s this mine they have to stop. And that’s the problem. When you keep changing the goals in your story, at some point, the audience stops remembering why the characters are doing what they’re doing. This was one of the big complaints leveled against Rossio and Elliott with the Pirates movies, the difference being that the characters in that film were actually interesting.

In addition to this, I couldn’t figure out why we needed two villains here (Cavendish and Latham). It was never clear which one was the “real” bad guy, leaving me constantly confused. And I never understood what their relationship was with one another. At one point, for example, Latham is going to have Cavendish executed. But a tribe of Indians interrupt the execution, forcing the two to work together to fight them off. After that, they start working together for good. Cavendish seemed to forget the fact that, oh yeah, earlier, two hours earlier you wanted to kill me! And I’m not saying the explanation wasn’t in there somewhere. But when you’re throwing so many plot changes at us, it becomes hard to keep up. This script would’ve been so much easier to follow with just one bad guy and a manageable amount of goal-changes.

I’m also unclear why this draft resulted in such a high budget. It looks to have even less action sequences than the movie I’m seeing in the trailer. There was a scene where Reid had to fight off a hundred coyotes, as well as a few sorta-big gunfights. But for the most part, there was a lot of talking here and not a lot of action.

Truth is, I’m afraid Rossio and Elliot took on an idea that was impossible to breathe life into. These characters feel ancient. Their interactions are dull. Tonto is stereotypical and boring (I can’t believe Johnny Depp was interested in this role when he has scripts like Desperate Hours at his production company). Reid is just…there. I don’t even know why he wears a mask. It’s not like it matters if anyone knows he’s John Reid or not. Even if the current draft is way different, I have a feeling this movie just won’t work. There’s something about this world that feels stale. A great film for 1956. Not for 2013.

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

What I learned: Remember, motivation is what makes audiences CARE about whether the protagonists achieve their goal or not. A weak motivation could destroy an otherwise good script. So you HAVE to get it right. The character motivation here was weak. The Lone Ranger was trying to save his sister-in-law? A woman he didn’t even like?? We’re supposed to care about that??? Contrast that with the motivation in an almost identical film, Django Unchained. Django’s WIFE, who was taken from him, is being held by a slave owner. Now THAT’S motivation! It’s personal. It’s heartbreaking. It’s intense. An audience will care if Django gets his wife back. I don’t see a single person going to The Lone Ranger and caring whether Reid gets his sister-in-law back.

If you can’t take The Heat, get out of the southewestern portion of the United States.

Genre: Buddy Cop/Comedy
Premise: An uptight FBI agent must team up with an unruly nontraditional Boston cop to take down a mysterious drug lord.
About: Writer Katie Dippold was one of the lucky ones. She sold this script last March and was in pre-production by June with director Paul Feig, who was coming off the success of Bridesmaids. Before Dippold broke onto the feature scene, she wrote for cult hit Parks & Recreation, and before that, Mad TV. Dippold has done a lot of (and still does some) improvisational comedy, most notably with the Upright Citizens Brigade. This weekend, The Heat surprised a lot of people by destroying the more male-skewing White House Down, taking in 40 million to White House Down’s 25 mil.
Writer: Katie Dippold
Details: 117 minutes long

I suppose it’s appropriate that I went to see The Heat this weekend. We’re experiencing a heat wave in Los Angeles. My new favorite script Where Angels Die is getting a lot of heat. Heat seems to be a major theme in my life right now.

But you know what’s not a major theme in my life right now? Laughing. Laughing is not a major theme during the two hour running time of The Heat. Look, I love Melissa McCarthy. I like Sandra Bullock a lot. I thought the two of them were a genius pairing. I loved the trailers. They’re what made me want to see the movie.

Which is why I’m so confused. Why is this movie so boring? I mean, it wasn’t as bad as Identity Thief. But for all the things it had going for it, it never made it out of second gear. And believe me, I know all about not making it out of second gear. Yesterday I was in the In and Out drive-thru when my car died. I’d realized I’d run out of gas but the warning alarm had never gone off to warn me of that (okay fine, that’s not true. It did go off earlier in the day and I was too lazy to get gas).

Anyway, the prospect of pushing my car through a drive-thru line was becoming a reality. And I don’t think there’s anything more pathetic-looking than having to push your car through a drive-thru line. Think about it. We go to drive-thru lines for the distinct purpose of being lazy asses. It doesn’t make sense if you all of a sudden have to start working for your food. And you want to know what really threw everything off? Monkey Style. That’s right. I had heard of a secret In and Out burger called Monkey Style, but they were telling me that Monkey Style didn’t exist.

Eventually, I was able to convince the fumes in my gas tank to give me all they had and got out of the drive-thru line in one piece. But I’m still pissed off that I didn’t get a burger Monkey Style. Clearly in this video, someone’s gotten a Monkey Style burger. Which means I should’ve been able to get one too.

What does this have to do with anything? It doesn’t. The Heat was just so average that I’d rather discuss my own life than the film. But I guess since this is a review, I have to discuss the film at some point so here’s the plot n stuff…

Ashburn (Sandra Bullock) is an arrogant FBI agent who believes she’s God’s gift to crime-fighting, so much so that everyone else in her department despises her. Not to say Ashburn isn’t good at her job. She just can’t work with others. Which is fine by her. A director job just opened in her office, which means she’ll soon be the one in charge. And the one in charge doesn’t have to work with anyone.

Only hiccup is that her current boss wants to see a little more from her before he gives her the position. There’s a mysterious Boston drug dealer that no one can seem to find. If Ashburn finds him, the job’s hers. Here’s the issue though. There’s a batshit crazy local cop, Mullins (Melissa McCarthy), who considers the Boston drug beat to be hers. If Ashburn’s going to start playing on her turf, she wants in. Knowing she’s gotta prove to her boss that she can play well with others, Ashburn reluctantly accepts Mullins as a partner.

Normally I’d finish this with: “Hilarity ensues,” because why not end the most generic setup ever with the most generic comedy cliché ever? But for those who just HAVE to know the details, the investigation leads towards Mullins’ ex-con brother, who was a low-level drug dealer before Mullins threw him in jail! Her enormous opinionated Boston family (think 20 people all screaming out “cah!” at the same time) hates her for turning on her own brother, which has since caused a huge rift in the family. But it’s Mullins’ brother who eventually leads them to the real bad guy, who turns out to be someone who’s, yup, ACTUALLY one of the cops.

All right, so after writing out this synopsis, I know exactly why this script didn’t work. First of all, the story’s too generic. Dippold did a nice job injecting the buddy cop formula with some freshness via a double dose of estrogen. But I think she thought that would be enough. And it wasn’t. This storyline was as generic as a pack of Safeway q-tips, and for that reason, we never really cared if Ashburn and Mullins got their drug dealer or not.

Now you may be saying, “That doesn’t matter as long as McCarthy and Bullock get to be funny together. That’s the reason people are going to the movie.” But you’d be wrong. That works for the first 4-5 scenes we see our pair in. We’re so excited to see these two battling it out, we forget about the plot. But as soon as that excitement wears off, the audience wants a story that’s going to keep them interested. And since everything in this story was bland, we never get that. Once a reader or audience member doesn’t care about what happens, it doesn’t matter if you have two of the greatest comedians in history playing your characters. We’re bored.

The other big problem here was the lack of urgency. There was no deadline, no ticking time bomb to the investigation. They seemed to have years to solve the case if they wanted that. This approach can kill a story. If we don’t feel that catching the bad guys is imperative, then we relax. And you never want your audience to be relaxed. You want them on the edge of their seats!

This was most evident in the scene structure. Every single scene was 30% longer than it should’ve been. Dippold (or Feig) would stick around way longer than she needed to in order to get 5 or 6 more jokes in (or Melissa McCarthy zingers). I remember Feig did the same thing with Bridesmaids, which at the time I praised. That’s because Bridesmaids was a different kind of movie. Nobody was trying to capture anybody. The comedy in that script was based around a lot of the awkwardness that Kristin Wiig’s character created, which is why the long scenes worked. They exaggerated the awkwardness.

Here, we needed to feel like we were running out of time, that something terrible was going to happen if the bad guy wasn’t captured ASAP. But that was never introduced into the script. Feig probably felt like this worked in his favor. Since his characters never technically had to be anywhere, he could just play with them, let them insult each other. We have a bathroom club scene, in which Mullins dresses Ashburn, that goes on for way too long. We have a scene where they get drunk at a bar that goes on for way WAY too long. We have a scene where they visit Mullins family that goes on three minutes longer than it has to. Every scene just lingered and the combination between long scenes and a lack of a ticking time-bomb made this script feel slower than it should’ve.

So if you go see this movie and you’re wondering why it seems to be moving so slowly, this is the reason. And I’m not saying it’s a terrible movie. McCarthy and Bullock are funny enough and have enough chemistry that you remain mildly amused throughout the film. But the goal of writers and filmmakers should not be to “mildly amuse” their audience.

Now some of you might be saying, “Well hold up here, Carson. How the hell did this script sell then?” A couple of reasons. I’m always telling you guys that you want to find a fresh take on an old genre/concept. It’s one of the quickest ways to a sale. Dippold did this by creating a female buddy cop movie when we’ve only ever had male buddy cop movies. Kind of genius when you think about it. Second, Dippold’s already repped. She already has a way to get her script into directors like Feig’s hands. The unknown amateur writer doesn’t have that. For that reason, their scripts have to impress more people to get to a level where they’d be shown to Paul Feig. That script is only going to make it past those 7 or 8 people if the story in addition to the concept is there.

[ ] what the hell did I just watch?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the price of admission
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Genre and subject matter will dictate the average length of scene in your script. If you’re writing a straight-forward comedy that takes place inside a house, like say, “Meet The Parents,” you’ll have more freedom to create longer scenes that play off of the awkwardness and conflict between the characters. But if you’re writing a buddy-cop comedy, where there’s a more explicit and important goal, the scenes should be shorter and contain more urgency to them.

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

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

Happy reading!

What is “movie logic?” Why should it never enter your script?

Amateur Friday Submission Process: To submit your script for an Amateur Review, send in a PDF of your script, your title, genre, logline, and finally, why I should read your script. Use my submission address please: Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Your script and “first ten” 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: Action-Thriller
Premise: (from writers) A college professor takes a yacht trip with her investment broker husband, but their plan for a relaxing weekend getaway turns into a deadly struggle when the skipper targets them in retaliation for the husband’s financial crimes.
About: A couple of producers inquired about this script when it was originally posted two weeks ago. I know they got in touch with the writers but I haven’t followed up with them to see what happened. Maybe the writers can share the status of the script in the comments section.
Writers: Joey Gray & Tim Wollaston
Details: 112 pages

Offshore is a strange little script, so much so that I’m still not sure what to make of it. It starts off as a serious thriller, then devolves into such craziness that it borders on comedy. The writing style and tone is so different in the two halves that when I saw it was written by two writers, I wondered if one wrote the first half and the other the second.

What the script has going for it is that it’s a movie. What I mean by that is I can SEE this as a film. I can see it being marketed. I can see the trailer. I can see the poster. And that’s important. If a script can be easily marketed, the quality of the script itself doesn’t have to be as high. With that said, I just don’t know here. The last act feels like it was written too quickly, almost as if it were a school assignment and the student had to write the last thirty pages in one night. There’s something here, but unless there’s a producer who really REALLY wants to make this kind of movie right now, the script’s going to have to be rewritten a few times before it’s ready to be purchased.

Dr. Rebecca Graham is a well-known psychology professor who has a book out about post-partum depression. She has a young son who was born deaf, Mason, and the book helped her get through that post-pregnancy part of her life to the point where she’s finally pregnant again. Unfortunately, Rebecca ends up having a miscarriage.

In the meantime, her husband, Paul, an investment broker, is dealing with all sorts of shit at work. The SEC is coming in to do a full-on investigation of the company and Paul’s boss is freaking out. For reasons that aren’t completely clear to me, the boss tells Paul he should take the company yacht and just go out into the open waters and have fun (I suppose possibly to recover from his wife’s miscarriage? Although it seems strange to me that Paul would just leave in the middle of an SEC investigation).

Anyway, Paul and Rebecca head over to this gorgeous boat where they meet Jack, the captain, a slimy sort who lingers on Rebecca’s cleavage a little too long. Rebecca feels uncomfortable about the guy but Paul assures her he’s okay and off they go. Turns out Rebecca’s intuition was right. Once they’re out on the sea, Jack kills Paul, then explains to Rebecca that Paul screwed over his parents’ retirement fund, which financially destroyed their family, which resulted in his mom shooting up the family (in a scene that opens the script).

Now here’s where things become a little unclear. The implication is that Paul’s company didn’t actually lose that money, but rather illegally stole it, and has since invested it in an offshore account in the Caymen Islands. Whether this was Paul’s boss or Paul himself who did this, I still don’t know. Regardless, there is now an account with 20 million dollars in it, and that’s where they’re headed. Jack needs Rebecca to sign off on the account so he can get the money. Of course, Rebecca wants no part in this, and spends the majority of their time on the boat trying to escape, a plan complicated by the fact that some men back on shore may or may not have her son Mason, whom Jack’s threatening to kill if she doesn’t help him.

Here was my big problem with Offshore. I never really believed anything that was happening. People were constantly saying and doing things that I’m not sure they would say or do in the real world. For example, the SEC is coming in to do a full-on investigation of the company. Paul is a key person in the company. So he just…leaves? If Paul was running away from something, I could see this, but it’s not his idea to leave. It’s his boss’s. So wouldn’t Paul say, “Uhh, Todd, shouldn’t I stay here if the SEC is doing an investigation? They’re probably going to want to talk to me. If I go on a trip, they’re going to think I’m hiding something.” That conversation never happened. So right from the start, something felt off.

Then there were little things. Like once they get on the boat and encounter Jack, the boat’s super-sketchy captain, he leers at Rebecca like a piece of meat. However, less than an hour after this extremely uncomfortable moment, she agrees to let Jack rub sunscreen on her back. Uhhh, WHAT??? Or later, when Paul and Rebecca start making out on the bed, Rebecca looks at the door to see Jack standing there, watching them. When she freaks out, Jack darts upstairs, so by the time Paul turns around, Jack’s no longer there. Rebecca proceeds to tell her husband that Jack was standing there but Paul doesn’t believe her. WHAT?? Why in the world wouldn’t you believe your wife if she said that the creepy guy who’s operating the boat was just standing there watching them make out? It makes no sense. There’s also a moment where when they first come on the boat and Mason’s with them. Mason does something wrong and Jack violently grabs him and yells at him.

Now Jack will be revealed to be bad soon. But at this moment, before the boat’s left the dock, he has to pretend to be the good guy. These two are the key to him getting 20 million dollars. Why in the world would you potentially screw that up by violently snagging the couple’s child and yelling at him?? Which was another problem I had. There was no subtlety here. Everything was on the nose. Jack makes clear he’s the villain from the second he enters the script. Why not have him be overly nice instead? Why not have him seem like the perfect helpful captain? That way, once they’re out on the water and he turns evil, it’s a great twist.

On top of this, the explanation of the plot (particularly the plot twists) was confusing. At a certain point we learn that Paul (I think) was actually bad, that he had stolen that money from Jack’s family, and was now taking this boat to the Caymen Islands to retrieve it. That might have made sense if the boat trip was Paul’s idea, but it wasn’t. It was his boss’s. So once his boss told him to take the company boat to spend time with his wife, Paul thought, “Well, why not collect that money on the Caymen Islands while I’m at it?” That just didn’t make sense to me.

Also, when we finally get to the bank, Rebecca reads a letter that basically implies Paul was going to run away from her with their son and nanny. So I guess he was secretly in love with the nanny? This is on top of the nanny secretly being Jack’s sister, who was supposed to have died in that opening shooting scene but who actually survived and infiltrated Paul’s family in order to facilitate this eventual boat trip that would get Jack and his sis their money back. Oh yeah, and the nanny/sister also caused the miscarriage (by throwing the morning-after pill into Rebecca’s coffee every morning). So the nanny is secretly a sister AND Paul’s secret lover?

This seems so outrageous that I’m inclined to think I misread it, but that was the problem with the second half (specifically the third act). It felt rushed and therefore confusing, like the writers didn’t meticulously plot through everything to make sure it all made sense. Instead, it was laid out there in a wild frenzy, giving the climax an “all-nighter” feel, one of those situations where you’re happy to have just gotten it finished, regardless of what you wrote.

If I were Joey and Tim, the first thing I’d do is go through every character choice in Offshore and say, “Would the real-life equivalent of this character do this in real life?” If the answer is no, rewrite it until the answer is yes. Too many characters operate on movie-logic here and it constantly breaks the suspension of disbelief required for a reader to enjoy the story. On top of that, re-outline and re-write all the twists and turns and make sure they all make sense. There are one too many twists here, which break the spell of the story. I’d rather read a script that has fewer twists that all make sense, then one that has a lot of twists that confuse me.

Like I said, there’s something here. But in my opinion, this script needs a few more drafts before it’s ready for primetime.

Script link: Offshore

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

What I learned: I don’t know why so many writers make this mistake but unless you’re writing a comedy, you don’t want your characters constantly doing or saying things that people would never do or say in real life. This is known as “movie logic” and it always reads false. If Rebecca has seen Jack look her up and down like a piece of meat AND nearly beat her child, she’s not going to allow him to do something as intimate as put sunscreen on her back. She’s just not.

Now THAT’S a memorable character

Last week, I talked about outlining your plot. This week, I’m going to talk about outlining your characters. The more scripts I read, the more I realize that the thing that separates the men from the boys is character. Characters with flaws, characters with backstory, characters who arc, characters with internal conflict, characters with interesting unresolved relationships. You can feel depth when a well crafted character steps on the page. When I read “Where Angels Die” last Friday, I FELT Parker. I FELT those other characters. The writer didn’t just write those guys on a whim. He (as well as the author of the book) got to know everything about those people. If you want to be a serious writer, you have to do the same. Being able to develop compelling characters is one of the easiest ways to carve out a career in the screenwriting business.

Which leads to the question – How do you do that? Well, I’m not going to lie to you. It isn’t easy. Character-building takes a LOT OF TIME. But it’s time well-spent, as it’s the difference between a character who feels made-up and a character who feels real. The more you know about your character, the more of a real-life-quality he takes on. Because in a way, he’ll start to become real, since he’ll have lived an entire imaginary life in your head. Some screenwriters balk at the idea of working so hard before writing a script. But I’m telling you from experience – Every time I’ve encountered thin characters, I’ve asked the writer how much effort he put into them, and he’s conceded “not much.” And every time I’ve encountered deep rich characters, I’ve asked the writer the same question and they say, “a ton.” So it WILL make a difference. But it requires commitment.

Unfortunately, character outlining isn’t as linear as plot outlining. You’re going to be building multiple documents here, one for each of the primary (and secondary) characters. So with that said, these are the three main things you’re going to want to focus on when character outlining.

1) Character Handprint
2) Character Backstory/bio
3) Character Relationships

CHARACTER HANDPRINT
This is what I consider to be the heart of your character. These are the things that define him, that you can always come back to whenever you’ve lost sight of your character. They’re important because they’re actually going to be coming up in the story (as opposed to the stuff in a character bio, which is all backstory). So create a file for each of your major characters, and start by writing these three things down.

a) Your character’s story goal – What does your character want in your screenplay? You need to know this because every choice he makes will be in service to this objective. Maybe he wants an ancient Ark (Raiders). Maybe he wants a girl (Notting Hill). Maybe he wants to get sober. Maybe he wants to not get killed by aliens (War Of The Worlds). Maybe he wants a life of freedom again (American Beauty). Know what your character wants as it will provide him with focus and clarity (never to be underestimated – I read so many scripts with unfocused unclear characters and they’re all a mess). And don’t just do this for your hero (which is the easiest story goal to figure out). Do it for ALL your characters!  Find out what ALL of them want in the story.

b) Your character’s story motivation – What is the reason your character is pursuing the story goal? A character without a motivation will read false because we won’t understand why he’s doing anything. Also, a strong motivation is one of the easiest ways to create a strong character. Sometimes motivations are obvious (Tom Cruise’s character’s motivation in War of the Worlds is to survive). Other times they’re complex (Alonzo’s motivation in Training Day is to frame a rookie cop so he can score a big payday). You need to know why characters are doing things or else every decision they make comes off as false.

c) Your character’s flaw – Everybody’s got a flaw, something holding them back in life. Once you know a character’s flaw, you can create a journey that challenges it. Think of flaws as a one-sentence sound bite a person might use to describe someone else. My friend Jason’s flaw, for example, is that he never follows through with anything. My ex-girlfriend Kristin’s flaw is that she put everyone else above herself. An old co-worker, Doug, never put in the effort required to succeed at his dream. Think of anyone in your life. Chances are, you’re able to come up with a one-sentence sound bite that describes their weakness. This is actually a great way to find a flaw for your protagonist. Go through everyone you’ve known in life, find their defining flaw, and see if it fits your character. Once you have that, you can create a story that challenges the flaw. For example, with my ex-girlfriend, Kristin, I’d write a story where people are constantly taking advantage of her because of how selfless she is. She has to learn, by the end of the movie, how to say no and put herself first.

With these three things in hand, you have the core of your character at your fingertips. But that’s just the core. If you want to really know your character, you’re going to have to know everything about their life…

CHARACTER BACKSTORY/BIO
If you want to take the next step as a writer, you need to create character bios for your characters. This will suck. It will take a lot of time. It will feel like work instead of fun. But it’s the best way to add depth to your characters. So within the same document that you wrote your Character Handprint, you’ll now write up that character’s backstory, broken down from the day they were born to where they are now. The idea here is to write down all of their major life beats.  Although it’s up to you how you want to do it, most writers simply write a character bio like they would a story.  How long should these be?   Some are five pages long.  But I’ve seen them get up to twenty pages long.  It all depends on how much you want to put into it.  Cover anything you think is important, but here’s a cheat-sheet to help you along.

a) When your character was born.
b) Who his parents were (if they’re still alive/together).
c) Where they were born (this will inform their speech pattern and personality. Someone born on the streets of Philly will act and sound different from someone who grew up in the suburbs of Chicago).
d) What kind of person he was growing up (Popular? Outcast?).
e) What kind of school he went to.
f) Who his friends were.
g) Who his first girlfriend was (first kiss, first love, who he lost his virginity to).
h) Where he went to college.
i) His first, second, third jobs.
j) Anything else you’d consider a “major moment” in his life (i.e. loss of a friend, lost the big championship as a kid, a major car accident, jail time, period of being a drug addict).

The more specific you can get, the better. Knowing where your character went to college is one thing. Knowing if he got a full ride or paid with school loans could inform his current financial situation. If he’s still paying off those loans, he might be drowning in debt, which affects his mood, his disposition, his personality. He could be bitter that his expensive education didn’t amount to a more lucrative career. Do you see how the more you know, the more specific and REAL your character gets? Only a tiny fraction of this stuff gets into the script because it’s backstory. But it’s still important because it will inform the decisions your character makes, which is what will make him feel more real. And if you really really really want to know your characters well, use this questionnaire sheet. It’s not mine. It’s been on the web for awhile. But it’s SUPER SPECIFIC and forces you to get to know your character better than you know some of your best friends.  Your character is going to be REALLY FUCKING DEEP if you fill this out.

CHARACTER RELATIONSHIPS
You definitely want to map out all the key relationships in your screenplay. And for a relationship to resonate, it should have a central conflict within it, something that’s unresolved. If there isn’t something that needs to be resolved, the relationship probably won’t be memorable. Think of relationships as the story that’s going on behind the story. Your hero battles orcs while searching for the gold. That’s the plot. But he may need his son as a guide, a son who’s never respected him after he deserted the family when our hero was a child. If you do it right, the audience will be more interested in the relationships getting resolved than the actual plot. Story relationships typically boil down to five types. They are…

a) family relationships
b) friendships
c) romantic relationships
d) work relationships
e) your hero’s relationship with the villain.

The typical screenplay will almost always contain the first three. One family relationship gone bad. One friendship that’s suffering. And finally, a romantic relationship that never seems to be on stable ground. Depending on the genre you’re writing, though (say you’re writing an action comedy like the upcoming, The Heat), the focus might very well be on the work relationship (Sandra Bullock needing to work with Melissa McCarthy). Whatever the relationship, your job in the outline is to identify what the unresolved issue is between the characters that needs to be fixed. It might be two cops who don’t respect the others’ work approach (The Heat). It might be a past love who’s run away with someone else and the hero wants her back (Great Gatsby). It might be a father desperately trying to get his daughter’s respect back (Taken).

You can map relationships out in two ways. You can create a document JUST for relationships, or, within each individual character document, include a section for that character’s key relationships. I prefer the latter because a relationship is different depending on whose perspective you’re telling it from. So say you’ve got Rocky and Paulie. On Rocky’s page, you’d describe the relationship as Rocky feeling loyalty towards Paulie and trying to help him. On Paulie’s page, however, you’d describe the friendship as more desperate. He needs Rocky because he doesn’t really have anyone else. Whatever the case, when writing a character bio, write out every character that character comes in contact with, and what the central conflict (or unresolved issue) is between them. Occasionally, there will be little or even no issues between two characters (there’s no conflict between Brad Pitt’s character and his wife in World War Z, for example). But usually, you’ll have something that needs to be fixed.

IN CONCLUSION
There are a lot of people who will tell you this stuff is overkill. And there are some instances where I’d agree with them. If you’re writing your first or second script, for example, getting into all this detail can be counterproductive. You haven’t even learned how to write a scene yet. Getting into who your character was 20 years ago will just be distracting. Once you get past those beginning stages though, you need to OBSESS over character. Because characters are the most memorable part of a movie. When we think of our favorite films, we think of the characters we loved in those films first and then the story. And I can practically guarantee that any timeless character you love wasn’t thought up on the fly. A lot of time and effort was put into making that character feel like a real person. That’s all you’re doing here when you outline. You’re getting to know the people in your story as well as you know yourself so you can write them as if they really exist. Most readers’ biggest complaint is thin characters. I’ve just given you a way to make sure that never happens. Take advantage of it!