Genre: Action
Premise: An undercover DEA agent and an undercover Naval officer, both unaware of each other’s status, decide to rob a bank, each for their own reasons, only to simultaneously double-cross each other afterwards, which ironically results in them having to work together to clean up the mess they created .
About: The writer, Blake Masters, is the creator of the TV show “Brotherhood.” He also developed “Law And Order: LA.” “2 Guns” is being adapted from a graphic novel. It will star Mark Wahlberg as one of the “guns,” but there is no word yet on who would play the other. There were rumors that Vince Vaughn might be interested, but I believe that was back when a different director was attached.
Writer: Blake Masters
Details: 117 pages – 9/17/09 draft (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).

Don’t get me wrong about last week. Foxcatcher and Silver Linings Playbook were great. But they dealt with some serious ass subject matter. After topping them off with that abysmal monstrosity of a screenplay about the most boring serial killer in the world, I was on Serious Overload. I needed to take the Tickle Train back to Fun City. I needed some smiles dammit! Evidence gave me some. The Trade murdered them. Was 2 Guns a shot at rebirth?

So we have Bobby and we have Stig. Bobby’s the clever one, the guy who can talk his way out of anything. Stig’s talents lie solely in his shooting ability. He isn’t the kind of guy you want talking to anybody. Bobby clears this up when Stig expresses interest in helping Bobby negotiate a deal: “Stig, you and I are here to do business. Diplomatically. If closing this deal involved shooting the wings off a fly while driving on two wheels through a ring of fire, I’d be the one getting something to eat.” The two hustlers have worked together for months, and are on the cusp of their biggest deal yet – securing hundreds of fake passports from a dude named Papi, who I admit I just imagined as “Tuco” from Breaking Bad. If you don’t know who Tuco is, just imagine the scariest motherfucking Mexican drug lord possible.

The deal goes sour but our guys manage to get away and it actually turns out to be a blessing in disguise because when they’re crossing back into the US, their car gets raided by a very confused DEA team, who was sure they’d find a bunch of fake passports. Afterwards, Stig suspects Bobby may have had something to do with the raid (could Bobby be a DEA agent?), and the two break up.

During that time, we learn that Stig’s not Oliver Honest either, as he’s actually an officer in the Navy. Is anybody telling the truth here? After a series of events too complicated to explain, Bobby gets kicked out of the agency and the only way he can prove his innocence is if he robs a bank. I swear that makes sense within the context of the movie. I think. Actually that’s a lie. I’m not sure it makes sense at all. But anyway, Bobby eventually convinces Stig to team up with him to rob the bank.

Unfortunately, whereas they thought they were robbing 2 million dollars, they find out it’s more like 80 million dollars. Somebody lied about the loot! That’s only the beginning of their problems because when you rob somebody of 80 million dollars, that person tends to wanna find you. And the person in question is a mega-time drug dealer from South of the border who makes Papi (aka “Tuco”) look like a 2-bit homeless man trying to pass oregano off as weed. Now you may be asking, “How did they steal money from ‘someone’ if they were stealing from a bank?” Good question. I’m not clear on that either.

Eventually they learn that all of this money is tied back to the CIA…umm…somehow. Which means they’ll probably be coming after Bobby and Stig too. That means they have the DEA, the Navy, the biggest drug dealer in Mexico, and the CIA all coming after them. Only way to clear this up? Break into the central Naval base and obtain…errr… evidence that they’re innocent. To…umm…prove their innocence? I think?

We sure talk a lot about stuff that’s underplotted – about thin stories.  But it’s rare that we run into a script that’s overplotted – that has TOO much going on. I think all those years on Brotherhood and Law And Order may have convinced Masters that he had to jam a season’s worth of twists and turns into a single film. At one point it seemed like every other page had a twist.

All you have to do is read my synopsis to see it. I was never exactly sure what was going on. And when the reader doesn’t know why a character is doing something (isn’t clear on their MOTIVATION), it’s hard to emotionally invest yourself in that character’s plight. If motivations are unclear, by association so are stakes. It’s hard to grasp the consequence of someone’s actions if you don’t know why they’re doing the action in the first place.

Let me give you a prime example from the script. Once Bobby screwed over Papi, Papi stuffed 100,000 dollars in his bank account to make it look like Bobby was on the take so he’d get fired from the DEA. Bobby was fired, but knew that Papi had 2 million dollars in a local bank. He figured he’d steal that money to prove Papi had it, which would allow the DEA to nail Papi for tax evasion, which would in turn…prove that Bobby wasn’t on the take? Does that make sense to you? Even if it does, it sure is a lot of dots to connect.

That’s how I felt weeding through this one. I had to connect a hell of a lot of dots to keep up. And after awhile, my brain just checked out.

So then why did I still enjoy 2 Guns? Because the two main characters worked. There’s a great opening scene where they’re trying to get these passports from Papi, and Stig is over in the corner watching these henchmen shooting at live chickens who they’ve buried up to their heads. Stig is pissed that they’re hurting these defenseless animals (Characters who stick up for defenseless animals = likable) and lets them know it. Then there’s Bobby, who’s handed a bunch of crap passports by Papi, who then tells him that there’s no way he’s accepting these pieces of shit passports (Characters who stick up to bullies = likable). So we immediately like these two.

Also, there’s this ongoing gag where Stig is always trying to order Bobby pancakes whenever they eat. But Bobby hates pancakes. So Stig will order him pancakes and Bobby will have to run down the waitress and cancel the order. And Stig will ask him, “How can you not like pancakes? Everybody loves pancakes.” Which inflames Bobby even more. And you just get the sense that this relationship is REAL, that these two have a past. Whenever you allude to an issue between characters that’s been going on since before the movie started, it gives the audience the illusion that these two imaginary people have a real history together. Which makes them more real!

So this was a weird read. On the one hand, the plot was impossible to keep up with. On the other, the characters were funny and likable. I could probably go either way, but since I can see this pairing easily working on screen, I’m going to give it a “worth the read.”

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

What I learned: Limit the dots! I’m a big believer in motivation simplicity. The less dots we have to connect, the easier it is to understand why our hero is doing what he’s doing. Now sometimes the genre you’re writing in requires a lot of twists and turns – I get that – but they should never come at the expense of understanding the story. Breaking Bad has tons of twists. But I always know exactly why the hero is doing what he’s doing – he needs money to pay for his cancer treatments (I’m only on Season 2 – not sure if this will change later).

Genre: Comedy?
Premise: Based on a true story, The Trade documents a pair of pitchers on the 1970 Yankees who traded their wives.
About: This script landed high on the 2009 Black List, was purchased by Warner Brothers, and quickly got mega baseball fans Matt Damon and Ben Affleck interested. It’s written by Dave Mandel, who’s known mainly for a stellar TV career. He helped write tons of Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes. He also wrote the huge spec sale “Eurotrip,” and most recently scripted the upcoming Sacha Baren Cohen vehicle, The Dictator.
Writer: Dave Mandel
Details: 125 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).

Let me start out by saying I’m a huge Dave Mandel fan. Eurotrip is a hidden gem of a comedy (“Scotty Doesn’t Know!!!”) and he helped write some of the best Seinfeld episodes ever (The Secret Code, The Wig Master, The Soup Nazi). He also co-wrote two of this season’s instant Curb Your Enthusiasm classics, “Palestenian Chicken” and “Larry Vs. Michael J. Fox.” So this guy has had me in stitches since the 90s.

Which is why this script confuses me so.

It’s never a good sign reading a comedy and you’re not sure if it’s a comedy. For the first 30 pages, I thought this might have been a light drama. And to be honest, I’m still not sure. The tone vacillates so wildly that I gave up trying to categorize it. I guess I’d call it a light comedy sorta drama?

The Trade is actually based on the real life story of 1970s Yankee pitchers Fritz Peterson and Mike Kekich. Fritz is an overachieving underappreciated lefty playing on a lousy Yankees team. He’s married to his overly bossy wife, Marilyn, who’s turned him into a big pussy.

Then Mike, another pitcher (tagged “the next Sandy Koufax”) arrives on the team and everything changes for Fritz. Mike is free-spirited and weird and could care less about his own wife, Susanne. The two married in high school and as far as he’s concerned, he’s still living the high school life – not a care or responsibility in the world.

Mike quickly ropes Fritz into his partying ways, and the next thing you know Fritz is bedding ladies left and right. But that’s nothing compared to what happens next. When the men start double dating, it’s clear they get along a LOT better with each other’s wives than their own. One thing leads to another and soon they’re……well, they’re dating each other’s wives!

If only that were the end of it. Each man then FALLS IN LOVE with the other’s wife and they realize that the only proper thing to do is to SWITCH LIVES. So Mike moves in with Marilyn and Fritz moves in with Susanne. They even switch KIDS!

Unfortunately (or fortunately), after awhile, Mike starts freaking out about Marilyn’s controlling ways. He can’t handle it anymore. The problem is, Fritz and Susanne have fallen deeply in love. So Mike wants to trade back but Fritz doesn’t. News of this scandal soon leaks to the media, and the next thing you know all of New York is talking about it. The guys will have to resolve the conflict themselves or the Yankees will resolve it for them.

Okay, let’s be real here. The only thing that works about “The Trade” is the title. It’s clever. It’s perfect for a poster. It works.

Everything else?

I don’t know where to begin with this one. This is a 5 minute conversation piece stretched out to 120 minutes. There just isn’t ANY meat to this story.

My biggest issue with The Trade are the stakes. There are NO stakes here. None. Zip. Zero. If you don’t have stakes, you don’t have comedy.

What do I mean by that? Well, in The Trade, neither character has a problem with their wife being with the other man. So there are no stakes there. Also, it doesn’t really matter whether they get caught. I suppose they’d have some explaining to do. But it’s not like they lose their job. It’s not like either of them loses their livliehoods. They simply get made fun for a couple of weeks. Big freaking deal. They’ll get over it.

In the end, the scandal does, in fact, get them traded. But never once is the possibility of that threat conveyed DURING the screenplay – only after the fact. You never get the feeling that if they get caught, something bad will happen. So there’s NOTHING there. The situations are the same over and over again and because we know the trade isn’t going to hurt anybody, there’s nothing to lose. And if there’s nothing to lose, there’s no humor.

Look at the simplicity of Mandel’s “The Soup Nazi” Seinfeld episode. He establishes at the beginning that this soup is like CRACK to the characters. The characters will do ANYTHING for this soup. To lose (stakes) this soup would be the equivalent of dying. THAT’S why the scenes are so funny! When the Soup Nazi screams at them to move, they do it! Because they know if they screw up, they could be kicked out and never allowed to have their soup again. Something is at stake! We never have a scene in The Trade where anything important can be lost (minus the very end – which I’ll get into in a moment).

Another issue here is that the current standard for media scandals is about 1 million times worse than 1970. We have R. Kelly peeing on underage women. We have history’s best golfer – one with a squeaky clean family image no less – having sex with an endless number of hookers. We have celebrities popping out sex tapes weekly. Two guys on a baseball team playing wife swap just doesn’t seem like a big deal.

When you combine this with an unclear tone and unclear writing, it’s hard to find anything to grab onto. For example, there’s a moment where we find out Marilyn wears a wig. When it’s off, her hair is described as thin and disgusting. So I’m imagining a Cryptkeeper look. Then later in the script, she decides to go to a party without her wig and all the guys go gaga over her. Umm….what??? You’re telling me that women rocking the Cryptkeeper is attractive??? There were a lot of unclear moments like this in the screenplay.

On top of all this, there’s no goal! There’s nothing driving the story forward! And there’s no time-frame, no urgency. I admit there are instances where you can get away with only the G and U in GSU, or the S and the G, and in the rarest of circumstances, just one of the three. At least if you have a GOAL for your characters, your characters will be active. But to try and write a story where you have none??? Not a single one? It’s like a blind man going bird-hunting. I don’t know how you make it work.

Can The Trade be salvaged? I don’t know. But I know the first thing I’d do on the rewrite is make this trade MATTER. Make sure there’s danger present and that the audience UNDERSTANDS that danger. In other words, make it clear that if they get caught, their lives would be destroyed, uprooted, ruined. Make playing for the Yankees a bigger deal for both of them as well – a dream! Now they have SOMETHING TO LOSE if they’re discovered. Raise the stakes of this movie and the movie improves dramatically. From there, try to add some sort of goal (maybe one of the players is trying to meet a huge contract bonus? And that bonus is threatened by the problems this trade is causing?). I don’t know. But something. ANYTHING.

I’ll admit that when I heard about this script, I thought to myself, “How do you make an entire movie out of such a thin premise?” But it was a Black List script so I assumed they’d figured it out. Man, I was wrong. I would love to see Matt and Ben back onscreen together again talking about “cahs” and “bahs.” But they’ll have to gut this thing and figure out a new angle first.

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

What I learned: The only portion of this script that works is the last 25 pages. Why? Because SOMETHING IS FINALLY AT STAKE! Fritz and Susanne have fallen in love. We FEEL that love. We know they want to be together. So when the media crashes down on them and Mike wants his wife back, we actually feel someone’s pain – Susanne – because SOMETHING IS AT STAKE. Somebody in the script ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT SOMETHING and that something could be ripped away from them. This is how powerful stakes are in a script. Show that somebody wants something badly and then introduce the possibility of that thing being taken away from them. Whether it be love, a job, or soup. As long as you have stakes, you’ll have drama.

Genre: Contained Thriller/Found Footage
Premise: A group of detectives try to piece together a mass murder on a Vegas shuttle van via the video taken from the passengers.
About: Evidence sold as a naked spec (no attachments – hardest type of spec to sell) earlier this year for low six figures I believe. John Swetnam, the writer, is on Twitter and has tweeted his frustration over selling TWO specs now (he just sold Category 6 – another found footage script) and still having to live on a budget. That said, he apparently likes to burn both ends of the candle, flying into various cities and partying his ass off until the sun comes up. We definitely need more partying writers so do yo thang John.
Writer: John Swetnam
Details: 93 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).

Changed today’s review at the last second! I was getting sick of the heavy stuff. Needed something light and fluffy.

Late last year a writer asked me, “Should I write a found footage script? Or is that trend over?” I thought for a long time and finally answered, “You know, I think the found footage thing is about dead.” Turns out I was wrong. We had that silly Apollo 24 found footage film. We have that found footage film coming out about kids with superpowers. We’re already on a third Paranormal Activity film. Evidence sold earlier in the year. Swetnam sold “Category 6” (about dudes going into crazy storms) a few weeks ago. I’m starting to wonder if found footage films are like rap. Everybody kept calling rap a trend in the 80s, yet it just kept on going, like the Energizer bunny. Could found footage films become a legitimate genre? I’m done trying to be Nostradamus so I’ll let you guys decide.

We’re in the middle of the Nevada desert – a shuttle van smoldering at the side of the road with a huge hole in the side. Up ahead, an abandoned gas station has been blown to bits. There are bodies and pieces of bodies everywhere.

Nevada cops are pissed. No precinct likes mass murders on their watch. But luckily, they have a couple of survivors and a lot of video. One of the survivors, Rachel, a 20-something aspiring director, taped most of the ordeal with a handicam. There are also a couple of cell phone videos and a flip phone from the other passengers. It’s not every day that video of a crime lands in the authorities hands so they might actually be able to solve this quickly. The question is. Will they solve it correctly?

Rachel’s going on this Vegas trip with her best friend, actress Lean Hoodplatt. Despite having a weird last name, she’s gorgeous and talented and ready to take Hollywood by storm. But she’s having a tough time in her personal life, having recently rejected her boyfriend, Tyler’s, proposal. She’s convinced him to come on the Vegas trip, though, in hopes of patching things up.

There’s also 18 year old Steven, a goth-ish loner who’s using Vegas to escape his controlling mom. There’s Vicki, a single mother who wants to upgrade her stripping career. There’s Bitter Ben, the bus driver. And finally there’s the mysterious “Old Woman,” a sloppily dressed 50-something who’s running away from something. We just don’t know what yet.

As the primary video is from director Rachel, the first bits show her and Leann preparing for the trip. We then jump to the van, which somewhere between LA and Vegas blows a tire. Luckily, there’s an abandoned gas station up the road where they can hang out until someone finds them. But upon getting there, PEOPLE START DYING!

Evidence actually cuts back and forth between the footage and the Forensics Technology Room where the detectives try to weave this complicated puzzle together. Like any good whodunit, the prime suspects keep changing. At first we think it’s creepy 50 year old woman – cause the world is racist against the oldies, you know? Then we learneth that she has some mentally fucked up estranged husband, and that HE might have been waiting for them at the gas station – although I don’t know how the duo knew exactly where the van would blow a tire. But that’s neither here nor there.

What is here AND there is somebody in a coat and a soldering mask, which means even when they do get the killer on tape, they don’t know who it is. Although at least one thing is clear. The killer is one of the people on the bus. Who is it? Why are they killing everyone? You’ll have to read until the shocking twist ending to find out.

Evidence is like a walk on the first day of spring. The sun’s out. The air is brisk. There’s a nice breeze. But it’s still a walk. You’re still just…you know…walking. So it’s not THAT exciting. That said, you’re glad you did it.

The other day I railed on Black because I didn’t know ANYTHING about the characters. Nothing. And since I didn’t know anything, I didn’t care what the hell happened to them. Some commenters pointed out that people don’t go to horror movies for character development. That I agree with. But they do often LEAVE horror movies disappointed and don’t know why. The reason why is almost always because the characters sucked, so they didn’t care what happened to them.

Evidence gives us the PERFECT amount of character development for a movie like this. You don’t have time to get too in depth. Too much backstory can get in the way of a fast-paced horror film. But there’s still SOMETHING.

I know that Rachel wants to be a movie director. I know Leann wants to be an actress. I know there’s some recent drama between Leann and her boyfriend. I know that the stripper lost custody of her child. I know that Steven, the goth dude, had a falling out with his mother. None of it is too weighty or original. BUT IT’S THERE. It makes these characters more than names on a page. So I cared a lot more about these people than I did about Zombie Panda and the Panderettes.

One thing I’ve noticed with found footage is that it allows you to jump around a lot more freely than normal films and therefore keep the story moving at a breakneck pace. Wanna skip over a boring part of a conversation? Just pretend like the characters didn’t record that part. Movies are formatted to skip over the dumb parts as it is. But the found footage angle allows you to take this practice to the extreme. It’s the perfect device for our patience-challenged culture.

And you might not have noticed this. But the found footage angle actually allowed Swetnam to pull the “Crazy first scene than CUT TO ONE DAY EARLIER” device without it being annoying! Chances are you didn’t even notice it! That’s because it was an organic result of using the video tapes. Going backwards was a natural part of the way things were set up. A good reminder that annoying story devices aren’t annoying if they’re organic to the story.

But the most important triumph of this script is it really keeps you guessing. I’d already been told there was a twist ending. Yet still, I had no idea who the killer was. As each page went by, I only found myself more confused. “Well it can’t be THAT guy” I’d say, even though I’d been positive it WAS that guy. That happened like three times.

Does the script have problems? Well, there’s no doubt it feels “light.” Now that’s the kind of movie it is. It’s not trying to change the world or anything. But still, even with the character development, I felt Evidence leaving my brain almost immediately after it was over.

And I’m still trying to figure out which route this moron Shuttle driver took. I’ve driven that LA to Vegas route a few times and I have no idea how you’d get on an abandoned road in the middle of nowhere. There’s an interstate that goes directly from one city to the other. Maybe I missed something and they got off the main road for some reason, but if not, that definitely needs to be figured out.

Evidence was fun. A bag full of candy on a rainy day. Should make a good return investment for whoever makes it.

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

What I learned: This is a good example of writing for the market. Being aware of what audiences want, what studios are looking for, and giving them that. I don’t think enough writers approach it this way. Amateur Friday writer Adam Zopf made a great point in the comments section of his review – You don’t have to change the world with your script. In fact, if you’re trying to change the world with your script, there’s a good chance you’re writing a really boring script. Come up with a marketable idea, create some characters that you personally connect with to give it some depth, and then write the best damn script you can. I see too many good writers wallowing in obscurity because they’re trying to write the next Academy Award winning film. Save that stuff for when you’re established. Right now, write something that’s going to get people excited and break you in.

Note to readers: Guys, I know it’s difficult to discuss this script without discussing the ending, but I’m going to ask you to refrain from spoiling the ending. Most writers are fine with me reviewing scripts but get upset when a big twist is spoiled.Thank you.  :)

Genre: Thriller/Horror
Premise: At their ten-year reunion, a formerly bullied outcast decides to enact revenge on the cool kids who made his life miserable.
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). Also, it’s a good idea to resubmit every couple of weeks so that your submission stays near the top of the pile.
Writer: Adam Zopf
Details: 116 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).

Let me give you some background on this read. It was 10:30pm. I was preparing to read my Amateur Friday script for the week. Chose one with a good premise. 13 spelling mistakes by page four. Went back to the well. Pulled out the next one. I had to read the first sentence four times to understand it. Threw it out. Pulled out another one in which the writer promised it was better than famous movies A, B, and C. By page 5 I realized I’d drifted into a daydream about Uncrustables. I tried to keep reading but it was like swimming through bricks. There wasn’t a friendly sentence in the lot.

I considered the possibility that I was too tired to read and decided to call it a night. Then I thought, ehhhhh, maybe I’ll try one more, and begrudgingly picked up Reunion. It’s not that I didn’t like the premise. It was okay. But I’ve read a lot of these high school thriller scripts and they always end up being lame. Advanced Placement was a perfect example. And that was one of the BETTER ones. So I ain’t gonna lie. I was expecting bad things from Reunion.

My fears were verified almost immediately when I was barraged with these huge paragraphs in the opening pages (Adam, you gotta get rid of these). I was doing that thing where your head falls back against the chair, you stare up at the ceiling, and you plea to the Script Gods to make it end.

But then…a strange thing happened. My exhaustion started to dissipate. Those huge paragraphs? They evaporated like snow on a warm Spring day. The words started to flow together like chocolate and caramel. The characters, who at first seemed cliché and boring, started to grow on me. Most surprising of all, I wasn’t thinking about Uncrustables anymore. Which is just not possible once I start thinking about Uncrustables. When it was all said and done, I realized that I had just read the best Amateur Friday script I’d ever read on the site.

John Doe is your average 28 year old dude. Holds down a normal job. Lives a normal life. Type of guy you’d pass on a busy street and not think twice about. It so happens that John’s just received an invitation to his 10-year High School reunion. Although it’s not clear to us why yet, John looks like he’s been waiting for this invitation for a looonnnng time.

Jason and Maria are the perfect couple – high school sweethearts who never lost the spark for each other. Jason was the popular athlete and Maria the prettiest girl. These two also receive their reunion invitation, but while Maria’s thrilled to mix it up with all her old friends, Jason’s kind of moved on with his life. He’ll go, but only because Maria wants to.

They get to the banquet hall (not in the high school) and within minutes the gang is back together again. There’s Vicki, little Miss Perfect and former valedictorian. There’s Derek, the name you see in the dictionary when you look up “meathead.” There’s his meathead brother-in-arms Wes. There’s Quincy, the smart one of the bunch. Ryan, the face-man of the group. And finally the desperate duo of Molly and Claire. Never as popular as Maria or Vicki, yet 5 times as likely to abuse their power.

During the reunion, the group gets a mysterious invitation to continue the party back at the high school. They look at it as a spontaneous opportunity (just like they used to do in high school!) and head over there. It’s there that they find a big fat keg in the middle of the gym floor. They get to drinking but pretty soon find themselves woozy. They pass out, and the next thing you know wake up in desks with collars around their necks.

The P.A. system sputters to life and a mysterious man claims to have Meathead Derek with him. If they don’t follow his orders, Derek will be hurt. They of course think this is all a joke. But there’s something unsettling about the voice. He explains that the collars they’re wearing are a combination of poison and acid. If they try and run, they will die a painful ugly death. Hmmm. Now everybody’s getting worried. This IS a joke, isn’t it?

John reminds them of who he was in high school. Grossly overweight. 300+ pounds. And these guys let him know it every single day. They’d scream out “FAT PIG!” and squeal whenever he was nearby. Every day for him was a nightmare. And it was all their fault.

So he’s giving them a chance to redeem themselves. If they can tell him his real name, he’ll let them go. But until then, he’s going to put them through a series of “tests” so they can learn what it was like to live every single moment in fear.

We go from classroom to pool to woodshop to almost every location in the school, and each time, they’re tested. Sometimes the tests are as simple as answering questions. Other times they’re as complicated as swimming to the bottom of a pool teeming with piranhas. And John Doe is no joke. If you don’t do your job, you die. And members of the crew start dropping like flies. Will anybody survive this? Will they stop John Doe’s insane experiment? Or will he eliminate them all?

Okay, as I indicated before, I expected a really shitty script here. It’s just hard to make anyone believe in or care about a situation that’s so obviously manufactured. I mean, something like this would never happen in real life. So the challenge of getting an audience to suspend their disbelief is immense. Which is probably the biggest achievement here. Just the fact that Adam got me to believe in this scenario was amazing.

In my opinion, what made the script work so well is that I was torn between who I was rooting for. I mean we have this crazy psycho lunatic executing these innocent people left and right, and yet as the story goes on, and we learn WHY he’s doing this, we slowly start to root for John. I mean I’ve never experienced such an intense divide in who I was rooting for before – the “hero” or the “villain.”  I could make an argument for both sides.

And that doesn’t happen unless the character work is great. And the character work is just really strong here. John Doe is the kind of character you will continue thinking about for weeks after you finish this screenplay. Why? Well, because Adam decided to ignore one of those crusty screenwriting rules all of us screenplay enthusiasts preach: Avoid flashbacks at all costs.

Reunion THRIVES because of its flashbacks. It’s in these flashbacks that we experience John’s life in high school. We see his loneliness. We see what it was like for him going to school every day. People laughing at him. People calling him “Fat Pig” wherever he goes. And because Adam tells it in basically the first person, we feel like WE’RE the Fat Pig. We feel like WE’RE being made fun of. It’s a brilliant decision. Because we really start to identify with and understand John. And that’s where great scripts separate themselves – by creating complicated complex characters. John is KILLING people. So then why is there a part of us that wants him to succeed? Why is there a part of us that understands him? It makes us uncomfortable. It confuses us. It frustrates us. In other words, it makes us FEEL something. It makes us THINK about something. Most scripts just wanna make things explode. Which is why Reunion is so powerful.

I think what I liked best about Reunion though is that it never quite went how you thought it was going to go. For example, I just assumed the flashbacks were going to be a series of repetitive ventures showing us again and again that John got bullied. Instead, there’s an entire STORY within the backstory. There’s an arc. John actually has a heroic moment. The school actually falls in love with him. It’s stuff like this that really separates the men from the boys. If you can surprise the people who read everything, you’re doing a good job.

But it’s the last image of those flashbacks that will stay with you. It’s that moment that will have you thinking about Reunion long after you’ve put it down. It’s the reason you’ll find yourself rooting for John to take out the last of these hyenas, even though you know it’s wrong.

Now the script isn’t bulletproof. It does get sloppy in places and some of the choices are questionable. I was not a huge fan of the math scene. I understand that we have to start small and build up with each lesson. But it felt a little silly with them sitting at desks with their lives in the balance over a math question. And the piranha scene was a bit much. I mean, how do you even get several hundred piranhas into a high school without anybody noticing? It was silly.

That’s the challenge with this screenplay. It’s a situation that would never ever happen in real life. So anything that reminds us of that should be avoided at all costs. I understand the use of the pool. You need some cinematic elements to this and if everything is in a classroom, it will get stale. But there has to be a more believable way to use the pool. Maybe he weighs one of them down and they’re pulled to the bottom of the pool and have to be saved. I don’t know. But come on. Piranhas?

Other than that, I loved this script. Fat Pig is a character for the ages. And you know what? Not only is this the best Amateur Friday script I’ve ever read, but it’s something that could actually be made – be marketed. People would go see this I think. If you’re a producer out there, I would jump on this before it gets snatched up.

Script link: Reunion

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

What I learned: Tell a story with your flashbacks. I think the flashbacks that bother me most are the isolated ones. When they’re unconnected one-offs that serve as lazy ways to convey backstory. But when they’re their own story, each one building off the previous, then we’ll be looking forward to them. The backstory becomes a story in itself. This is one of the better ways to use flashbacks in my opinion.

I hope you don’t think you’re going to learn a lot about dialogue in this article. Dialogue is a constant battle for me. It’s something I don’t totally understand. The reason for this is that dialogue is the one aspect of screenwriting you can’t truly “break down.” You can’t divide dialogue into three acts. You can’t add a character arc to dialogue. You can’t give dialogue backstory. You simply write down the voices in your head. And while some people have interesting voices to draw from, others don’t.

The funny thing is, dialogue looks so damn easy from afar! In fact, it’s why most people get into screenwriting. They think, “I can write better dialogue than THAT!” So they dive in, write up 120 usually autobiographical pages (likely the crazy adventures of them and their friends – “Our life is just like a movie!!!”), show it to their inner circle, get a bunch of polite but suspiciously distant “I liked its” punctuated by one brave soul who’s willing to say what everybody’s thinking: “I don’t get it. It’s just a bunch of people talking.”

Ohhhh. You learn your first lesson. Dialogue actually has to have a POINT! It actually has to move the story forward. Why didn’t somebody tell me? Quentin Tarantino has ten minute scenes about Royals with Cheese. Why can’t I do that? Because you’re not Quentin Tarantino. You’re you. And “you” has to learn that within every scene of dialogue, there must be a purpose. In fact, you should be doing SEVERAL things with your dialogue at once. And that’s where we learn just how difficult dialogue is. Sure, if all you had to do was have characters talk, dialogue would be easy. Instead, there are five main things that need to be accomplished whenever characters speak. Let’s take a look at them.

MOVE THE STORY FORWARD – Every scene should have a point. It should be moving the plot along in some way. If a problem is introduced into your story and a scene goes by without the characters attempting to address that problem, guess what? You’re not moving your story forward. So when your characters are talking, make sure the majority of what they say centers around pushing their own goals and needs along. You do that, you’ll be pushing the story forward. If no one wants anything? If characters just talk about life and stuff? Your dialogue isn’t doing its job.

REVEAL CHARACTER – You want to use your dialogue to tell us more about your characters. Screenplays are short. They’re not like TV shows where you have hundreds of hours to delve into a character’s life. Therefore you have to sneak character development in wherever you can. Dialogue certainly isn’t the only way to do this, but it’s one way. If a character says he just spent three hours at the gym, that tells us he’s a workout freak. If a character always talks about his ex-girlfriend, that tells us he’s not over his ex-girlfriend. One of the big ways to reveal character through dialogue is to identify your character’s fatal flaw and keep hitting on it throughout the script. Look at Rocky. Here’s a character who doesn’t fully believe in himself. So we get a scene where he expresses fear at the idea of fighting Apollo. We get a scene where he nervously flirts with Adrian. We get a scene where Mick tells him he’s a bum. The dialogue is constantly reminding us that Rocky doesn’t believe in himself yet, which is a key part of his character.

EXPOSITION – Exposition is the worst. It’s hard enough to make dialogue sound good on its own. Now we have to waste it on logistical story elements every 8 minutes? It’s like trying to pick up a girl and then her disapproving friend walks up. The words just don’t come out as easily. This is why the trick with exposition is to simplify what you need to say and convey it in as few words as possible. Exposition is always going to trip up your dialogue a LITTLE bit. But at least this way you minimize the damage.

KEEP IT UNDER 2 PAGES – To me, this is one of the hardest things about dialogue. If we had 5-6 pages for every conversation, dialogue would be as easy as accusing Justin Bieber of fathering your baby (baby baby ohhhhh…). But the average film scene is 2 minutes long. 2 MINUTES! That’s only 2 pages for your characters to say everything they gotta say. This is why new writers hear this critique so much: “Cut cut cut cut cut.” You gotta cut everything down to its bare essence because you don’t have time in your scene to include all the bullshit. Sure, some scenes are longer than others.  A five minute dialogue scene is not unheard of.  But it’s still rare.  Which means learning how to scrunch all your dialogue into a very small space. 

ENTERTAIN – This is the scariest part of all when it comes to dialogue. After you do all that stuff – the story, the exposition, the characters, the minimizing – the dialogue still has to entertain us! It still has to sound like two people talking in real life, even though in real life, every one of these conversations would probably go on for more than an hour! That means going back, smoothing it all out, editing it, rearranging it, adding a joke or two, and continuously asking yourself, “Does this sound like two people really talking?” Until the answer is “Yes,” keep rewriting it.

Now that we know the stipulations working against us for writing brilliant dialogue, let’s talk about the tools you can use to fight these inhibitors. I don’t have all the answers. I fight against dialogue every day. That said, I know these five tools help improve dialogue.

COME IN LATE, LEAVE EARLY
This was mentioned in the comments the other day and it’s a great tip – especially for beginners. Come into your scene as late as possible and leave your scene as early as possible. In other words, only give us the meat of the scene. Not the fat. Say your characters are meeting at a coffee shop. Tom is getting the coffee while Sarah waits at the table. Tom says, “What do you want again!?” “A double mocha decaf!” “Large?!” “Uhh, yeah, large!” Tom waits, grabs the coffees, walks over, sits down, a moment for the two to get settled, they ease into a conversation…and then SOMEWHERE around here they actually start talking about the story. UHHHHHHH…NO! Why the hell would you include all that irrelevant nonsense?? Start with them ALREADY AT THE TABLE WITH THEIR COFFEES. Catch them five minutes into their conversation, right when they’re talking about the important stuff. That’s what I mean by “Come in late.” Then, as soon as you’ve met the point of your scene, get out. Once Obi-Wan and Luke agree on a transport fee with Han in the Cantina scene, they don’t sit around for another five minutes chatting about the weather on Kashyyyk. We cut away. Now obviously there’s some flexibility in this rule. Sometimes you want William Wallace to take his time riding through the village, building up the suspense, before he BEATS DOWN the English. But for the most part, coming in late and getting out early will keep your dialogue focused and on point. You won’t write a bunch of boring shit if you only include the meat.

SET-UP
The best dialogue scenes are set up ahead of time by carefully building up your character’s goals, secrets, motivations, etc. You then place them in a scene (preferably with something at stake), and watch the dialogue write itself. For example, Joe and Jane talking about their friend’s wedding is boring. But if we find out beforehand that Jane plans to kill Joe in this scene, talking about that wedding becomes a lot more interesting. Paul meeting his potential father-in-law is mildly entertaining. But if Paul’s girlfriend tells him beforehand that she’ll never marry someone her father doesn’t approve of, now Paul meeting his father-in-law is SUPER entertaining. Watching Mick beg Rocky to be his coach is a strong scene no matter where it is in the film. But the reason it’s a classic is because we watched Mick kick Rock out of his gym and tell him he didn’t believe in him earlier. So if a scene isn’t working, go back in your script and see if you can set it up better. Once you find the right situation, the dialogue will write itself.

SUBTEXT/DRAMATIC IRONY
This is one of the best ways to improve your dialogue. Give one character a secret. Give both characters a secret. Or tell the audience something the characters don’t know. If you do any of these things, you’ll create subtext, unspoken words beneath the text. If we know that Frank plans to break up with JoJo, then anything they talk about before the break-up will have subtext. If Julie secretly likes Tom and the two accidentally get stuck in the bathroom at a party, anything they talk about (Math class, bird watching, dinosaurs) will have subtext. There are other ways to achieve subtext (which you guys are free to highlight in the comments section) but this approach tends to create the most powerful dialogue situations.

STAY AWAY FROM ON THE NOSE
When we first write dialogue for a scene, we often think literally. If a character asks, “Are you thirsty?” We might have the other character respond, “Yes. Could you get me some water?” That’s a very literal on-the-nose response. Most people talk in and around what they’re trying to say instead of saying exactly what they’re thinking. They use slang, sarcasm, manipulation, indifference, caution – any number of things – to keep the conversation off-center. Rarely does dialogue go down a straight path. So let’s ask that question again. “Are you thirsty?” A more interesting response might be, “No, my lips always dry up and bleed like this.” Your characters are not robots. Nobody speaks literally. So make sure you’re mucking up the dialogue and that no one is speaking on-the-nose.

KNOW YOUR FUCKING CHARACTERS (KYFC)
Writers hate doing character biographies because it takes so much damn time, but holy hell does it work. Why? Because the more you know about your character, the more specific you can make their dialogue. Bad dialogue is usually general – vague, non-specific. Rick comes home late one night and spots his roommate, Jed, on the couch. “What’s up man?” “Not much. How’d your day go?” “Shitty. I’m exhausted.” This is the most general boring conversation EVER. Let’s say I did some character biographies ahead of time though and found out that Rick is an aspiring actor and Jed is a compulsive gambler. Let’s try this again. (Rick stumbles in) “I’ve got two words: Fuck Stanislofsky.” “I need to borrow money.” Rick gives Jed a look. Jed: “What?? How was I supposed to know Vick would tear his MCL.” “I’m not giving you any more money.” “Come on. The Raiders are a sure thing.” It ain’t going to win any Academy awards but it’s certainly better than “How’d your day go?” Why? Because it’s SPECIFIC. It reveals character. It has the people in the scene saying things only they would say. Do your homework on your characters. I promise it will pay off.

And that’s all I got my friends. I know it’s not the end all article on dialogue but the truth is I don’t know everything about dialogue. Which is why I’m turning to you. Please. I want to learn. Tell me how YOU approach this aspect of screenwriting. What tips and tricks help you? This is the least defined area of screenwriting. Let’s try and crack it.