F. Scott Frazier broke onto the scene over a year ago with his eerie spec script “The Numbers Station,” which he sold to Content Film. The script is about a man tasked with guarding a strange top secret remote station that ends up getting breached, putting his life in jeopardy. The film is going into production within the next couple of months. He followed that up with a more recent sale, “Line of Sight,” to Warner Brothers, about Delta Force Three-One (considered to be the most dangerous men in the world), who are brought in to quash an anti-government uprising on American soil. He also has a mystery third sale (as I found out during this interview) that has not been announced yet. Besides being a great writer who’s tearing it up on the spec market, Scott’s a genuinely down to earth and cool guy. I loved hearing what he had to say about the craft.

SS: When did you begin your pursuit of this craft? What were your first impressions of it? Did you find it harder than you initially thought it would be, or easier?

SF: I’ve written my entire life. Short stories, plays, books, screenplays, you name it. Nothing that you would ever call good. Nothing that you would ever call finished.

Right out of high school I got a job working at a video game company where, after nine years, I ended up as a producer. I started making a pretty good career for myself. But my dream had always been to write, and in 2009 I quit my job to follow my dreams.

I knew that it was going to be hard. When I knuckled down to try and finish a script, I realized what an immense undertaking it really was. It was definitely harder than I thought it would be but there was great enjoyment in the difficulty. There was immense pleasure to be found, and there was something to be found in the overcoming of obstacles and arriving at the solutions to all the problems.

People told me it was harder to break in than it was to write a really great script. And while I appreciate the opinion on the matter, I decided early on not to listen to it. I was going to break in. And the only obstacle I had to overcome was writing a really great script. (At least in my mind.)

However, I also knew I needed to have a finished product as soon as possible, at the highest level of quality as possible. And so I set about writing as close to eight hours a day, seven days a week as I could manage. When you have little money and live 35 miles outside of LA it’s really quite amazing how much you can get done.

SS: At what point did you believe you were capable of doing this? Was it a certain script? Was it a particular mental breakthrough?

SF: After finishing the rough draft of my second script, I put it away in a drawer and didn’t look at it for four months, truly believing it was awful and not worth the space on my hard drive. My creative process has always included a cooling off period. I always like to get time away from anything I’ve written. However, when I went back to that second script, telling myself how awful it was, it turned out it wasn’t as bad as I had remembered it being. In fact it was really quite good. It still needed a lot of rewriting, but I had a feeling that it was something special.

This was the script that eventually got me representation and I’ve since sold it. It is ramping up for production at the end of the year.

Reading the rough draft of that script was a defining moment. It didn’t suck as much as I remembered it sucking. I knew that I was getting better. It gave me the confidence to push on. It gave me the confidence to rewrite it. It gave me the confidence to query it. And it gave me the confidence to not quit and go back to my day job.

SS: And how long was it before you sold The Numbers Station? How many scripts did you have under your belt before that happened?

SF: I got representation in January of 2010 (Chris Fenton and Chris Cowles at H2F, Mike Esola at WME) and we sold Numbers Station in April of 2010. Up to that point, since quitting my job, I had two complete screenplays as well as four others that were in various stages of completion. Although that doesn’t include the literally thousands upon thousands of pages I had written over the first 27 years of my life that will never be completed and will likely never see the light of day. (Because they’re awful.)

SS: Did The Numbers Station sell with or without Ethan Hawke attached? And because it seems like you need a name actor to get your script sold these days, can you explain how that process works? I mean, how does one even go about getting Ethan Hawke attached to their screenplay?

SF: From my perspective, it all happened simultaneously, where one day I was told that we were making a deal on the script, and then a few days later that Ethan was attached. I’m sure there was a lot of wheeling and dealing in the background that I was just not privy to. And knowing how the industry works now, I have to assume that Ethan was instrumental in getting the project off the ground.

The producers, Sean and Bryan Furst, have done an immense amount of work in moving the script from the recesses of my imagination to a greenlit movie. Set to start production in less than six weeks.

I couldn’t even begin to tell you how Ethan Hawke was attached to the script outside of the general knowledge that he had worked with the Furst brothers in the past and they had an ongoing professional relationship. As far as the process is concerned, I couldn’t say one way or the other, all I can tell you is that one morning I was driving down the 405 when I got the phone call that Ethan Hawke, a real honest-to-goodness movie star, wanted to be in my movie. How or why it happened, I’ll probably never know.

SS: I’m assuming The Numbers Station is what led you to your agent. Since getting an agent is such an important step in a writer’s success, can you explain how that all came about?

SF: H2F came first. I was introduced to Chris Fenton by his next-door neighbor. I went to high school with her son. And although neither my friend nor his mom worked in Hollywood, having lived in LA my whole life was the catalyst to getting representation. So if I’m going to throw my hat into the ring, in regards to a lot of online discussions right now between burgeoning screenwriters, I would greatly urge writers to take the chance and move to LA, if at all possible. It’s where the business is, it’s where the deals are made, and if you’re going to build a career early on, it’s where you’ll eventually have to be anyway.

After being introduced to Chris over email, he sent me the scariest letter of my life. It contained 5 words: “Send me your best script.” And for an entire weekend, I read my two completed scripts over and over and over, trying to decide which one was better. I ended up choosing my second script over Numbers Station because it was a little bit bigger and a little bit more of a high concept. I guess I chose correctly, because Chris called me in for a meeting within a week.

I was introduced to Mike Esola through Chris, again based off of my second script. When Mike and I met for the first time, we had a great rapport with one another and I could tell after fifteen minutes he was just as eager and excited to be a part of this business as I was.

SS: You’ve sold (I believe) two scripts now. Did either of those result in one of those notorious back and forths between writer and agent where your agent keeps coming back to you with a higher and higher number? If so, what’s that like? Is it the most nerve-wracking experience in the world? I mean, how do you not just take the first amount they offer you?

SF: So far I’ve actually sold three scripts, and every time the experience has been different. I trust my reps to handle the business side of the equation. I try not to get too involved in the moment-to-moment back and forth of negotiation. When they tell me, “This is a good deal,” I take it.

Whenever we’re getting close to selling something, I’m always nervous. I try to do anything and everything I can to keep my mind off of it. I also find a little time to celebrate after it’s done. But then something in the back of my head reminds me that in this business you’re only as good as your last success and I invariably end up back in front of my computer, starting a new script.

SS: In your opinion, what is it you know now that makes you a better writer than three years ago, when you were eating ramen noodles and living on people’s doorsteps?

SF: Thanks to my selfless wife, I was lucky enough to never have lived on anyone’s doorstep or eat ramen.

I think the thing that has become the most clear to me over the last 18 months, is that when building a career in this industry, selling your first script is the easy part. And that’s a really, really tough lesson to learn.

And although it took me a bit of time to realize, I eventually learned to not be too beholden to rules and trends. To write a script the way I want to write it, the way I want to see it appear on the screen, the way I want it to feel and sound. The one thing everybody in this town is looking for in a writer is that unique voice. That alchemical combination of choice, structure, narrative, plot, characters, and world view. You’re the only person equipped to deliver a screenplay in your voice. And while I think copying and learning from those who came before us is one of the key steps to success, you have to eventually break away and deliver a screenplay that is 100%, unequivocally yours.

And so it really comes down to this: write the movie you want to see at the theater this Friday night. Make it yours and yours alone and people will stand up and take notice.

(That’s not to say you can write 180 minute musical about a Russian oligarch in the 18th century who falls in love with his pet mule and expect to sell it to a major movie studio for mid-six figures.)

SS: Do you outline your screenplays or just go where the story takes you? If you do outline, how big a part of your process is it? Do you write just a few pages? A lot of pages? Take us through it.

SF: One of the things I’ve had to overcome is that I get bored very easily. This has helped because it makes it so that it forces me to finish something before I want to move on to the next project. But it’s also made my writing process a bit more fluid. While I always outline, from project to project my outlines will change in both density and format. Right now I’m addicted to note cards. In the past I’ve written 30-page treatments, as well as bullet-point lists. The one constant between all these various types of outlines is that I know my major beats, I know who my characters are, and I know what I want them to go through. Depending on the genre, I’ll also want to know what my big set pieces are, where they go, and how they interact with both the plot and the character arcs.

The things I usually never know before going into a rough draft are things like: theme, length, dialogue, and moment-to-moment scene structure. I like to discover all of this along the way. I’m never beholden to the outline or any previously held ideas or notions about the story or characters while working on the rough draft or any subsequent major rewrites. I find a lot of times that I’ll surprise myself with fun twists that I didn’t see coming when I keep myself open to the creative process.

And although sometimes it’s absolutely frightening, I have to dare myself to suck in order to finish what I started.

SS: Let’s talk about The Numbers Station for a second. It’s such a cool idea. How did you come up with it?

SF: I heard a story on NPR about this couple that goes out into the desert to try to find short-wave radio broadcasts. I was immediately fascinated by the topic. And after doing some research and realizing how deep this rabbit hole went, I knew I wanted to write a movie around these theories. Of course my mind immediately goes to spies and action and being the first script I ever attempted to finish, I wanted it to be a little bit smaller than normal with fewer characters and fewer moving parts to juggle.

SS: I recently had an idea for a thriller where many of the characters were lying about who they were. I backed off of it because I realized it would be too difficult to create real characters that the audience could identify with if everyone was a chameleon. You sort of run into the same problem with The Numbers Station. Because of the nature of the story, the characters can’t really talk about who they are. How did you navigate this? Was it something you thought about? Were you worried that the audience wouldn’t be able to relate with them? Or did you simply shift the emphasis over to the plot?

SF: In all honesty, I never really thought about it that much. I think within the spy genre, there’s always an expectation of duplicity, and again going back to the smaller cast of characters, I think it’s much easier for one or two people to be lying to each other than six or seven or even ten.

I’m reminded of the movie WICKER PARK where one character’s lie sets in motion the entire plot. And I think that if you can somehow find a way to balance the duplicity against the dramatic irony of the setup, you can find a way to make the characters relatable without sacrificing the narrative conflict.

Lying, half-truths, misdirection are such a staple of the thriller genre, that I think audiences have been groomed to expect and accept that at some point in this experience they will be lied to.

SS: My favorite part about The Numbers Station was the mood you created. It just had this dark eerie vibe, sort of like the way I felt watching “Let The Right One In,” even though they’re two totally different stories. Is mood something you think about? If so, how do you approach it?

SF: Both mood and tone are very important to me regardless of the genre or script. When I set out on a new project I want the script to reflect the movie I see in my head. If there’s a big surprise, I want to write it in such a way that the words jump off the page, with capital letters or underlines. If there’s a little bit of tension, I want the reader to hold their breath with long run on sentences and a sprinkling of ellipsis…

I want the pace of the script to mirror the pace of the movie.

To me, a lot of this comes from word choice. I wanted The Numbers Station to feel impersonal and closed off. So I used words like “sterile” and “claustrophobic” to describe the locations. I knew that audio was going to be a big thematic undercurrent of this movie, and so describing sound and the way the sound interacted with the movie was just as important as the visuals. I didn’t really want the action to be glorious or stylized, so I purposefully wrote it in a very matter-of-fact style. This happens. And then this happens. Again going back to the impersonality of the story.

I don’t know if I accomplished it in every scene. But it was definitely a conscious decision to write the scenes and the movie as a whole in styles and structures that matched the emotions at any given moment.

SS: In your eyes, what was the key component to making The Numbers Station work? What was that “ah-ha” moment when you knew you had a screenplay?

SF: I don’t know if there was ever a moment when I knew I had a screenplay other than when I was through with it and had no more changes to make. It definitely took a couple drafts to feel like I had a movie on my hands. Even on scripts that I’ve sold, I don’t know if I ever have that moment outside of writing “the end,” and sending the PDF to my reps.

SS: It seems like the way most specs sell these days, is they’re written under the guidance of a producer, who understands the market and therefore knows who he’s going to try and sell it to once the script’s ready. I get the sense that that’s how you sold your second spec, Line of Sight. Can you take us into how this process works?

SF: I had been introduced to Alex Heineman over at Silver Pictures when Numbers Station had gone out as a spec. About six months later, he came to me with an idea that I found incredibly intriguing and after breaking the story together, over a few conversations, I wrote my first draft. I turned it in to Alex in January. We did a couple of rewrites together, and then it was sent to Warner Brothers in March. Alex seemed to know exactly what it was they wanted because they bought it less than two weeks later.

Producers definitely know what buyers want, and if you’re able to get in there with the right idea at the right time, you can have a winner.

I personally tend to write multiple scripts at once, and my own rule for writing specs is to write one with a producer and one without. Gives me the best of both worlds and is also key in building relationships in the industry.
 
SS: You have a lot of young writers out there hanging on your every word. What advice would you give them to find success in this pursuit?

SF: Write every day. Finish things. Write every day. Don’t ever listen to anyone who tells you how hard it is. Write every day. Write what you like, not what you know. Write every day. Avoid the trap that is cynicism, it will cripple and rot every creative bone in your body. Write every day. Know that with a metric ton of hard work and a limitless supply of perseverance, success is out there waiting for you. And write every day.

And also, write every day.

Genre: Offbeat Comedy
Premise: When a man’s cat is impaled by an arrow, he will go to the ends of the earth (or at least his town) to find the killer.
About: Hey, it’s List Week. Murder Of A Cat made last year’s Black List, and it looks to be the writers’ breakthrough screenplay. Before this, they were slapping together short movies that had about as much of a chance turning a profit as a Delgo sequel. Now they’re writing an animated King Kong movie for Fox Animation that will tell the famous story from the vantage point of the big ape. Oh what a difference a great script makes!
Writers: Christian Magalhaes & Robert Snow
Details: 109 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Truth? I love murdered cat stories. I actually have – believe it or not – a cat murdering comedy idea of my own! It’s nothing like this, and actually, now that I’ve read “Murder Of A Cat,” I probably won’t write it, since this is clearly the best cat murder story ever told. But there’s something inherently funny about a cat being murdered, right? Right?? Or maybe not? Hmmm…we’ll have to get Bohdicat’s take, as he’s our resident cat expert. As for Christian Magalhaes and Robert Snow, I don’t know who these guys are, but I have a feeling after their King Kong flick, they’re going to have quite an impact on the comedy scene. The sense of humor on display here is just so…out there.

30-something Clinton Moisey isn’t living the life of luxury. Actually, scratch that. He isn’t living YOUR idea of the life of luxury. He is, possibly, living his. Clinton lives with his mother and runs a barely profitable yard sale business on the weekends. He has two loves. Building his own action figures and his cat, Mouser.

Mouser’s getting up there in age, and Clinton is very obsessive compulsive about Mouser’s health. If his fur so much as feels weird, it’s off to the vet. Clinton’s mother thinks he’s crazy (and he might be – he is considering taking his cat to a cat psychiatrist) but hey, Mouser is his best friend in the entire world. He wants to make sure he’s okay.

Well, Mouser isn’t okay the next morning. That’s because Mouser’s DEAD. Sprawled out on the street with an ARROW through his belly. Clinton is devastated, but also really angry. Whoever did this isn’t going to get away with it. They’re going to PAY.

After finding a few “missing cat” flyers throughout the neighborhood that have a cat displayed who looks mysteriously like Mouser, Clinton follows the leads to a girl’s apartment, breaks in, and finds pictures of Mouser all over the place! This crazy woman has been stalking his cat and planning to kill him for ages! The apartment owner, Greta, comes home, and the accusations start flying. But after they calm down, the two realize that the cat was “moonlighting,” living with both of them at the same time. And just like that, the potential suspects have doubled.

Clinton, who’s not exactly a charmer around the ladies, reluctantly enlists Greta to help him find the killer. The two trace the arrow back to a unique crossbow sold at the Walmart like superstore Greta used to work at AND that put Clinton’s comic book store out of business (or so he believes).

The central suspects include the freakishly weird Yi Kim, a 19 year old Asian who loves magic, and Alistair Ford, the recently divorced owner of the Mega-Store. Clinton breaks into the store and sees both suspects moving merchandise inside the packages meant for the crossbow that killed his cat. So there’s obviously a bigger plan going on here. The problem is, Greta starts to think they’re in too deep and wants out, which leaves Clinton to do it all on his own. Which is fine by him. Cause Clinton Moisey WILL find out who killed Mouser. Through hell or damp cat litter!

I thought this script was pretty much awesome. It’s a hard tone to describe and it’s definitely not going to be for everyone but if I were pushed to come up with a description, I would say it’s a cross between A Confederacy Of Dunces and Eagle Vs. Shark. I mean obviously, Clinton is heavily influenced by Ignatius J. Reilley. He’s eccentric, deluded, and socially unaware. Every time I come across a character like this (The Most Annoying Man in The World, Zach Galifianikias’ character in Due Date) I kick myself for not writing them myself. These characters are always funny.

And the fact that his best friend in the world is a cat, that he lives with his mother, that he runs a yard sale, and that he believes Ford’s Megastore put his comic book store out of business (Ford Megastore doesn’t even sell comics) – I mean this is 50% of the work here – coming up with a memorable interesting main character for your script. Murder Of A Cat definitely has that.

And the script itself is so damn funny. The totally bizarre Yi Kim randomly performing magic tricks on you (pulling cigarettes out of your ear at the most inopportune or inappropriate moments). At one point Yi is close to dying and in between sputtering breaths, performs his favorite cigarette behind the ear magic trick, cause, you know, he just has to. And the script contained the biggest laugh of the year for me – yanking out the Braveheart reference – when during a nightmare immediately after Mouser’s death, dead Mouser, cast in dramatic blue light, turns to Clinton and whispers, “Help me.”

And it’s clever. I’ve seen just about every way possible of putting a man and woman together who don’t want to be together in a movie, but I’ve never seen two people brought together by co-owning a moonlighting cat that was murdered. Who thinks of that??

Then there’s the details. Details are what tell me whether a writer’s really thought their story through or not. For example, Magalhaes and Snow knew that the ridiculousness of this premise was going to hinge on how much we wanted Clinton to find the killer. So the night before Mouser’s killed, they give us a brief scene, less than half a page, right before Clinton goes to bed, where Mouser is sitting on Clinton’s stomach, and just purring at him. It’s a quiet, tender, loving moment. And it sells the drive and the determination that Clinton has for the rest of the movie.

The only reason Murder Of A Cat didn’t score an impressive was because the love story sort of fell apart as the script went on. The story is set up for Clinton to learn to connect with real people, and not live in this fantasy bubble where your only friend is a cat. I thought that was a great message to explore. He loses the love of his life, but gains something much more important (real human emotion) as a result.

But Greta keeps disappearing during the second act, sending Clinton to do most of his work solo. For that reason, when the final act has the two come together, it doesn’t ring true, because they haven’t been around each other enough to sell it. It’s not a huge issue, but it is an issue.

Outside of that, I really liked Murder Of A Cat. It’s quirky and unusual and possesses that pivotal story trait all readers love – unpredictability. It’s definitely not for everyone. If you don’t like Eagle Vs. Shark or have never read A Confederacy Of Dunces, you might be mumbling the equivalent of, “Damn that Carson. Why the hell does he think this is funny???” But if you’re into weird humor, take a chance on this one. I bet you’ll like it.

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

What I learned: Some commenters have recently pointed out that you need to set things up in your first act so you can pay them off in your second act. Here’s a good example. We set up that Clinton HATES Ford’s Megastore. He believes it’s the devil and that it destroyed his Comic Book business. For this reason, when he finds out that the arrow that killed his cat CAME from the Megastore, there’s more at stake with him having to go there. There’s a history between him and the place. That gives those store scenes so much more weight than if the store HADN’T been set up. And all it took was a couple of lines in the first act!

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A 20-something publicist uses today’s social networking tools to track down his old tutor, who he was in love with as a kid.
About: Lauren Pemberton, as far as I know, did not sell. It did, however, make last year’s Hit List. While The Black List compiles the industry’s favorite unmade scripts, there are usually only 25 spec scripts on the list. Most of the scripts are adaptations and assignment work from big time writers. The Hit List compiles ONLY SPEC SCRIPTS, so it’s a better indication of who your direct competition is. Lauren Pemberton finished somewhere in the middle of the Hit List.
Writers: Isaac Aptaker & Elizabeth Berger
Details: 119 pages – undated (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

So I was watching The Social Network the other day and afterwards, I needed a pick me up. It’s a really good movie but man, everybody in it hates each other, backstabs each other, is a big meanie to each other. Friends are discarded like Cabbage Patch Kid card dobules. There’s just this overall sense of selfishness and evil. I figured I would either have to book a weekend to Disney World or find a social network script that reminded me there was still good in the world. On that end, Lauren Pemberton seemed like the perfect fit. A script about dating in the social-networking era. Or stalking in the social-networking era. Either way. It sounded like it would lift my spirits. So did I “Friend” Lauren Pemberton?

It’s 1999 and little 14 year old Josh Mintz is in lurv with his 17 year old Latin tutor, Lauren Pemberton. Lauren is pretty, smart, funny, and curvy in all the right places. Not many people can make Latin interesting, but Lauren Pemberton seems to be one of the select few.

As most 14 year olds would probably do, Josh begins to romanticize his time with his hot tutor. A smile here or a comment there, and Josh believes that Lauren might be falling for him. So when she invites him to her house for their last lesson, Josh assumes it will be to make love. Or kiss or something. So when he gets there early and finds her banging the star quarterback, well, he’s sort of devastated.

Cut to 12 years later and Josh has completely forgotten about Lauren Pemberton (yeah right). The dude is a star publicist now and his burgeoning career has him focused and happy. Until one day while screwing around on Facebook, the infamous “people you might know” sidebar suggests a little someone he should friend named “Lauren Pemberton.” Josh knows he shouldn’t, but he friend requests her anyway, then spends the next 48 hours checking his account every 12 seconds to see if she accepted. Hey, don’t judge. You know you’ve been there. (Oh Gina Johnson. Why didn’t you ever accept my request?)

Lauren finally accepts, but without a message, and in the script’s best sequence, Josh spends every waking second of the following weekend tirelessly going through everything ever written on Lauren Pemberton’s page. He learns every possible thing about her. The only problem is that Lauren has a boyfriend. So when that finally changes and the magical words, “Lauren Pemberton is not in a relationship” appear, Josh prepares the tried-and-true planned accidental meet-up at a bar Lauren’s going to.

The problem is, when Josh gets there, there are a couple of other guys who have ALSO spotted Lauren’s new “available” status, and they too are trying to nab her. So as Josh tries his “accidental” run-in, the other guys follow suit, and it all looks strangely suspicious. But even more suspicious is that after not seeing any of these guys for years, Lauren, who appears to be the most popular person in the universe, agrees to hang out with all of them the very next day.

During the times when he’s not battling with the other two suitors, Josh learns that Lauren wants to be a TV cook, but she has trouble finding an angle to make herself unique and usually ends up swearing at the camera and being flustered whenever she tries to cook something. In swoops publicist Josh who convinces her to embrace her idiosyncrasies, and what do you know, all of a sudden she starts to shine.

This, of course, brings them closer together, and finally puts Josh in his dream position – to be “in a relationship” with Lauren Pemberton.

Lauren Pemberton is a breezy little comedy with a fun vibe and its share of laughs. The script is well-written and better than a lot of comedy scripts I read. This isn’t amateur hour here. Aptaker and Berger know what they’re doing. However, Lauren Pemberton violates a huge pet peeve of mine, that pretty much ensured I wasn’t going to like it. What is this pet peeve? Making characters do things or act certain ways that they never would in real life, in order to move the plot forward.

The exact moment the script lost me was after Josh walked into the bar to meet Lauren, and the two other suitors showed up to do the same thing. I actually thought it was a genius little development to screw up Josh’s plan, but I thought it was just going to be for that scene. When I realized these guys were going to be permanent foils, I was really bummed, cause, in my opinion, it devalued the central driving force of the story (Josh’s pursuit of Lauren) and turned it into a broader sort of ongoing Three Stooges routine.

But what really bothered me was that from that point on, things just started happening because the plot needed them to. For example, we establish that Lauren has a billion friends on Facebook and is the unequivocal star of this bar gathering, the person everyone wants to be around. Why then, upon meeting these three guys she hasn’t seen in years and doesn’t know anymore, does she flippantly agree to go to lunch with all of them the very next day? Doesn’t she have plans? Doesn’t she have gobs of friends already? She doesn’t even really seem that happy to see them. More surprised. So the fact that she just says, “Sure, let’s all hang,” has the stink of “movie logic” to it. It’s happening cause the writers need it to happen to move the story forward, not because it would happen.

Not to mention, Lauren sees three guys she hasn’t seen in years, right after she broke up with her boyfriend, and doesn’t seem to pick up on the fact that they’ve obviously been stalking her. Again, this is a “writer’s hand” decision. Even though almost every woman in the world would pick up on this in real life, the writers can’t have that, or else the movie can’t move forward, so they defy logic and just make Lauren clueless for those couple of minutes and not suspect a thing.

This continues when Lauren just starts hanging out with these guys, going to their events, their speeches, their shows. For this extremely beautiful charming funny woman who every person wants to be around, she apparently didn’t have any life or any friends before this as she’s been able to completely clear out her schedule to only hang out with these three men.

This is topped off by a character goal that also defies real world logic. Josh’s plan is to have sex with Lauren so he can finally forget about her and move on with his life. This doesn’t make sense on any level at all. Josh is not a player. He doesn’t fuck people and move on. Josh has been in love with Lauren ever since he was 14. There is no evidence to suggest that having sex with her would allow him to move on from her. If anything, it would make him like her more. So the premise itself is shaky. It’s just there so that there’s a movie, not because it would happen in real life.

I’m making this script sound terrible and it really isn’t. But like I said, that conceit – things happening only because it’s a movie – is a huge pet peeve of mine. Longtime readers of the site know this. So Lauren Pemberton had an uphill battle with me from the start. That said, the script came to me recommended, and already a few people have e-mailed me to tell me how much they liked it. So I think if you don’t have that same obsession with movie logic as I do, you might enjoy this. Personally, I just wanted to believe what was happening more.

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

What I learned: Making characters do things they wouldn’t normally do solely to move the plot along is something I have a huge problem with. Now some of you may say, “But Carson, this is a comedy. Loosen up.” True, it’s a comedy, but it’s not a farce. It’s based in the real world. For that reason, it needs to play by real world rules. Let me offer you a scenario. Let’s say I hate Chinese food. Knowing that, if it’s Saturday night and I’m going out to eat, what is the food I’m least likely to eat? Chinese, right? Okay, now let’s pretend I’m a character in a movie. Same thing. My character hates Chinese food. However, in this movie, the girl I’m supposed to eventually meet and fall in love with at some point in the story works at a Chinese restaurant. So the writer of this script, in order to get his romantic leads together, has me decide, “You know what? Maybe I’ll try Chinese tonight.” My character goes to a restaurant he hates, meets the lead female in the story, and the movie is on its way. This is a rather clumsy example but you get the point. The writer has just made a character act completely illogical in order to push his story along. You can get away with this every once in awhile. But if you keep doing it (Lauren doesn’t realize the guys are stalking her, Lauren hangs out with them the very next day even though she barely knows them, a super popular woman had no friends before this and can now spend every waking moment with these guys, guys hang around each other who don’t like each other) the reader starts to sense an artificiality to the story. The thing is, all it takes is a little extra effort to fix these logic problems. For example, instead of having ME book a reservation at the Chinese restaurant, have my friend who’s joining me book it and not tell me until I get there. That way you get me to the restaurant and it still makes sense.

Genre: Crime/Drama
Premise: An ex-cop just out of jail seeks revenge on the partner who set him up.
About: Brian Helgeland is an example of having to pay your dues before you make it to the big time. Many may know him as the writer of L.A. Confidential, Mystic River, and Man On Fire. He also scripted the currently in pre-production behemoth, Cleopatra. But did you know Helgeland’s first credit was “A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master?” And that he followed that up with 976-EVIL. Then the Friday the 13th TV series? New screenwriters don’t realize that there is a progression to most screenwriters’ careers. You start at the bottom and work your way up. Sidney Grimes is a spec script Helgeland wrote to direct himself. It ended up on last year’s Black List.
Writer: Brian Helgeland
Details: June 14, 2010 draft – 117 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

I have to admit, I used to lump all these cop/crime flicks in together with each other. They all seemed to hit the same beats, have the same look, follow the same story. They, along with cops in general, just didn’t interest me. Then one day I realized it’s almost impossible to write two screenplays in a row without, at some point, having to write a cop character. Movies – at least the interesting ones – tend to be about things going wrong in some capacity. And if things are going wrong, cops are going to get involved to try and make it right.

And here’s the problem. If you try and fake it? If you base your cops on all the cop movies or cop TV shows you’ve watched, your cops are going to come off as really lame. That’s because you’re basing your character on entirely fictional elements. If you want to write cops that feel real (or write any job that feels real) you have to dig in and do the research. Read a few books about what a real cop’s life is like. Watch some TV shows or documentaries about real cops’ lives. Once I started doing that, I not only began to write better cops, I began to respect the complexities of their job. And I found a new appreciation for stories like “Sidney Grimes.”

Now I pay particular attention to specs from writers like Helgeland. Helgeland’s one of a handful of elite screenwriters who can’t make the 3 block trek to his local In and Out Burger without being offered a million dollar rewrite. The guy could easily make millions upon millions every year writing for others. So to gamble his time away and write something of his own? Something he has no guarantees will be bought or made? He must think that script is pretty damn special. And I want to know why he thinks that.

Title character Sidney Grimes has just gotten out of prison. Sidney used to be a cop. But through bits and pieces of conversation we gather that he was doing some bad shit on the side and eventually got caught for it. We also learn that Sidney had a sick wife, real sick, and that while he was in prison, she died. So yeah, it ain’t exactly tea and strumpets at the Grimes household.

After Grimes reclaims a stashed gun at his old home, he walks into a backyard barbecue, and coldly kills his old partner, Ray Childress. Word on the street is that Ray was the real one doing the dirty work and that he set Grimes up. That – my friends – is how you take advantage of your new found freedom.

Grimes meets up with his best friend, Roman Cahill, who’s also a cop, and who also had a beef with Childress. Needless to say, he’s pretty happy Grimes whacked him. And now he wants to work with Grimes again. Just like old times. Work with him? How can they work together? You can’t exactly rejoin the police force after using it to stock your own personal drug emporium. Well, Cahill actually runs a side business ROBBING BANKS. Sweet!

In this sea of corruption, there are a couple of good guys. There’s Lisa Bell, a hot little number, and her straight-as-an-arrow partner, Fowler. Naturally, these two work for Internal Affairs. And they suspect that Grimes is the one who killed Ray Childress. They just can’t prove it yet. So Bell and Fowler trail Grimes (and Roman), slowly piecing together just how deep the rabbit hole goes. Problem is, Grimes does some piecing together himself. And he may be surprised when the puzzle finally comes together.

Let’s start with the obvious. GREAT character name. Coming up with a name for your hero (or antihero) is the perfect way to define your character. I don’t even have to describe Sidney Grimes to you. You read that name and you immediately form a picture of him in your mind. That’s the power of a good name (and probably why Helgeland titled the movie after him).

Also, there’s something inherently compelling about corrupt cops. Remember, irony plays a big part in a lot of memorable movies. If you can create opposition between who a person is supposed to be and who they actually are, an audience is going to be drawn to that character. A cop is supposed to protect. So a cop that hurts others makes us feel unsafe. It’s why movies like Training Day and TV shows like The Shield are so popular.

The only problem with the corrupt cop route is that it’s been done to death. It doesn’t matter how wonderfully ironic a character is. If an audience is tired of seeing that kind of character, they’re gonna be bored.

So once you establish that irony, go back to what matters. The character himself. Try and make that character’s life as interesting, as compelling, as complicated as you can, so that they stick out on their own, so that they don’t need that “irony crutch.” It’s simply another extension of who they are.

Let’s take a closer look at Grimes. The woman he loved more than anything died. His good friend and partner betrayed him. The first thing he does when he gets out of jail is kill him. He’s closed off emotionally (because of his wife’s death). He’s less likely to trust others because of that betrayal. A main character in a movie like this has to have a lot of conflict going on inside of him. And Grimes is practically the definition of the word “conflict.” That’s what separates this script from its competition.

That said, “Sidney Grimes” did feel a little cliché at times. How could it not? It’s a cop flick. I could’ve done without the naked intense workouts to opera music (haven’t we seen that before?) And while the wife death did a good job of informing his character, I couldn’t help but feel like I’d seen too many similar backstories for characters like Grimes.

That leads to an unavoidable reality. On a macro level, Grimes feels a little familiar. But Sidney Grimes requires a micro look to appreciate. It’s the little details like walking into your old house (now occupied by a happy family) to grab your stashed gun. It’s your do-gooder female cop banging a random dude she could care less about to open her story. It’s Grimes begrudgingly trusting his old friend Roman again, despite his instincts telling him to trust no one. I wouldn’t say that Sidney Grimes is breaking any new ground. But it gets all the details right. And Helgeland really shows us why he’s one of the top dogs.

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

What I learned: Reality TV is your friend. Boy did I never expect to write that sentence. Did you know that 15 years ago, the only way for writers to research something was to GO TO THE LIBRARY??? Imagine that. Physically getting up and driving to the library to do research. Wow. I can’t even comprehend. These days, you have EVERYTHING at your disposal right at your computer screen. And one of the best places of all for research? Itunes. You can find a reality show for just about every profession out there. My two current favorites are The Police Women Of Maricopa County and Lockup (I have a female cop and a jail playing prominently in a screenplay). You get to see what their real routine is like, what they really talk like, procedures, how criminals really act. Not how it happens in the movies. This is a godsend as it adds a level of authenticity that ten years ago you just would not have been able to find without riding along with an officer or visiting a jail yourself. Take advantage of it!

Genre: Action
Premise: (from writer) Halloween night, 108 mercenaries seize Manhattan to hold it hostage for 48 hours and a PTSD suffering Iraq war vet must find redemption and save the day.
About: Every Friday, I review a script from the readers of the site. If you’re interested in submitting your script for an Amateur Review, send it in PDF form, along with your title, genre, logline, and why I should read your script to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Keep in mind your script will be posted in the review (feel free to keep your identity and script title private by providing an alias and fake title).
Writer: Sun-kyu Park
Details: 119 pages

I got two words for you. South Korea represent. Assuming we can classify South Korea as one word. It’s been awhile since we’ve seen a good action script. In fact, I don’t see many straight action scripts on the spec market these days at all. Or at least any that sell. I don’t know if companies figure they don’t need scripts for action movies anymore or the straight-to-video action market is so strong that nobody bothers making big-budget action movies anymore. That can mean only one thing. That the straight action film (Die Hard, Speed, Cliffhanger) is primed for a comeback. Is Siege Of Man that comeback?

To say that Siege Of Man starts off with a bang would be like saying Cameron Crowe casually enjoys placing his favorite songs in his movies. That is to say, a MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENT. It’s clear after reading the opening sequence in Siege that Sun-kyu is disturbed, unstable, and insane. Lucky for us, because this has gotta be one of the more memorable openings to a screenplay I’ve read in a long time.

We’re in Baghdad. A group of soldiers prepping for another day in the heart of danger. There’s Max, a roguish photographer. There’s Joe, a blue collar corporal. And there’s Chang, a soldier just trying to make it through the day. The group is driving around the city when they’re surprise-attacked. There’s chaos and shooting and bombs and cars blowing up and pedestrians being used as decoys and even though these guys are prepped daily for these types of situations, this one is totally out of control.

At some point a man named Henri The Mercenary comes to them like an angel from the heavens and ushers them to safety. Or at least tries to. As they get to their helicopters, Henri doesn’t make it, is captured, and thrown inside a Baghdad movie theater. Just before he’s about to get tortured like no other human in history, a hardcore military man named Ash walks in and saves him. He tells him he’ll get him out of this mess, but only if he’ll help him do something.

Cut to a year later and we’re in Manhattan. Our boy Max ended up winning the Pulitzer for the pictures he took during that battle, while Joe is a drunken mess. A drunken mess who’s also a cop. Little do they know, Ash is prepping a hundred some mercenaries for some hardcore New York City takeover action. And oh yeah, it’s Halloween.

Within a 30 minute period, two of the bridges connecting Manhattan are blown to pieces. A couple of mid-sized blimps with multiple dirty bombs are sent up above the city. The internet’s taken out. Cell phones are taken out. And just like that, Ash has taken over New York City. He lets everyone know via speaker systems that if they don’t do as he says, they’re going to get their mouths washed out with dirty bombs.

Meanwhile, Max and Joe, who run into each other by coincidence, are tasked with figuring out what the hell’s going on and how to stop it. That’s not going to be easy since Joe is still pissed at Max for caring more about his stupid pictures than saving people on that fateful day. Luckily, they run into Army Sergeant Kirk, who helps bridge the chasm between them and give a more sound plan to saving the city. So what is Ash doing exactly? What is his plan? Click on the link at the end of the review to find out.

One thing’s clear. Sun-kyu can write. All you have to do is read the first 20 pages to see that. I thought I was in for a typical “American soldiers get attacked” Baghdad sequence when I started reading. And that’s how it starts. But where Siege Of Man is different is that it keeps going. And going. And going. And shit just keeps getting worse. And worse. And worse. As our heroes pull out their weapons to fight back and see nothing but a wall of pedestrians, it’s just terrifying. Particularly because cars are blowing up around them and men are shooting at them from rooftops. And they’re in the middle of the city and there’s nowhere to run. What’s so cool about this opening sequence is that you can SEE IT. You can see the movie playing out before your eyes. That’s a powerful talent to have as a screenwriter.

Here’s the thing with Siege of Man though. While Sun-kyu is great at writing action, the plot itself is confusing and the character development isn’t very good. This is a common problem many writers run into. They get an idea for a movie – like someone taking over New York – and they become really into WRITING THAT. But they never sit down and specifically map out WHY this would happen or HOW all the characters are involved. As a result, you get something that’s comprehensible but not enjoyable. All the dots connect, but with really weak lines – like the kind you get when using a No. 3 pencil.

For me it began with Ash. A cool bad guy. He wants to take over New York. I’m into it. But for the majority of the screenplay, WHY he wants to take over New York is kept a mystery. When you keep something that important a mystery for that long, you better wow us when it’s finally revealed. And I was definitely not wowed when I heard Ash’s plan. That’s because I still don’t understand it. Apparently, Ash is going to insert a virus onto the Fed’s mainframe, destroying the United States’ ability to move money. This will then – I think – result in worldwide chaos, and countries will start attacking each other. And then we’ll have World War 3.

I’ll try and say this as politely as possible but….what?

Next we have Joe and Max. I can’t quite put my finger on it but I was never interested in either of these guys. Despite experiencing that intense battle with them at the opening of the movie, I have no idea who they are. One has a drinking problem and is pissed at the other. The other feels guilty about his Pulitzer. It’s really barebones stuff and hardly complex enough to emotionally pull us into their journey. I was just watching Psycho the other day, and noticed how much Marion had going on as a character. We know she’s in a taboo relationship. We know she’s thinking about giving up her life to be with this man full time. She steals money to achieve this goal and leave her old life forever. She’s lying to everyone she meets from that point on. There’s a TON going on internally with this woman. You can practically see the conflict playing out within her every time she opens her mouth. Granted, Siege Of Man is an action flick and not a horror film, but I needed a lot more going on with my heroes.

Next we get into logic issues. In broad terms, if you don’t really think about it, the takeover sort of makes sense. The bad guys have blown up bridges, cut out the cell phone towers, and set up massive bombs if anyone does anything stupid. But Ash has around (I believe) 150 men at his disposal. 150 men would have trouble keeping order in Central Park. Manhattan’s small but it’s not THAT small. So this idea that enough bad guys were patrolling the streets to keep things in order didn’t fly.

The final problem is that the script just runs out of steam. This is what I was talking about yesterday with the second act. If you’re not exploring your character’s flaw, if you don’t have a couple of compelling relationships that need to be resolved, and if those aren’t coupled with an escalating plot, your second act is going to fall apart. Joe and Max do have a fractured relationship, but it’s pretty murky what needs to be resolved (Joe wants Max to acknowledge not caring during the Baghdad battle?). This forces Sun-Kyu to resort to Michael-Bay-itis, covering all these deficiencies up by MAKING SHIT EXPLODE.

The thing is, Sun-kyu knows how to make shit explode. He’s very visual. He’s imaginative. He knows how to paint the type of scene you’d want to pay ten bucks for on a Saturday evening. And for that, he should be commended. But here’s the weird thing about Hollywood. Yes, it’s true, that when a big-budget movie races towards production, producers could give two shits about logic and character development. In fact, most of them freak out and do their best to dumb down and ruin the movie as much as possible, which is why we get abominations like Transformers. However, when you’re an unknown writer trying to break in with a spec script? Those same things become incredibly important to producers. Ironically, they WANT character development. They WANT your plot to be intricate and logical and make sense. Is it hypocritical? Sure. But these are the guys writing the checks. Even though they’re going to turn your screenplay into an incoherent piece of shit a year and a half from now, right now, it needs to be perfect.

While Siege Of Man didn’t do it for me in the end, it’s the best writing I’ve seen in an amateur script in awhile. If Sun-Kyu keeps working at this and improving the non-action portion of his writing, he’s going to become a working screenwriter in Hollywood.

Script link: Siege Of Man

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me (but recommend the writer)
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: One of the reasons James Cameron’s films have grossed more money than any other writer’s films in history is that he’s the only action writer I know who cares just as much about character development as he does action. Watch any of his movies and you’ll see that. I mean, he gives the damn Terminator a character arc in Terminator 2. Let me repeat that. He gives a ROBOT A CHARACTER ARC. The truth is, most writers who love action aren’t interested in character development. And most writers who love character development aren’t interested in action. So think about it. If you put equal emphasis on both, you could be unstoppable. Just like James Cameron.