My friends, we actually have a good script today. A very good script.

Genre: Action/Period
Premise: Set in the 14th century, a shepherd watches as a group of mercenaries assault and murder his employing family, setting him on a path of revenge.
About: Today’s writer, Will Dunn, has been writing for a long time. He first made strides by getting into the Twentieth Century Fox writing program back in 2011. Since then, he’s sold a few scripts, including one called “Ion,” about a man who travels to other planets and dimensions in search of his reincarnated lover. The Peasant also made last year’s Black List.
Writer: Will Dunn
Details: 98 pages

This role seems tailor-made for the fast-rising Alan Ritchson

Katt Williams, my new muse, said something interesting in a recent interview. He said, “People think stand-up comedy is easy because you’re just talking. And everybody thinks they can talk and be entertaining. The irony is that the better I get at my craft, the easier it looks. But those people aren’t considering the 30 years of work I put in to make it look this easy.”

It’s the same thing with screenwriting. The better the screenplay, the easier it looks to write a screenplay. There’s no place that better represents this issue than the Black List. We’ve gotten a ton of bad scripts from the list and, one would think, it is partly due to the delusion people have of thinking this craft is easy.

It’s not. It’s hard.

But lucky for us today, we finally have a screenwriter who knows what he’s doing.

It’s the 1300s in Tuscany, Italy. War is so prevalent at this time that even when there’s no war going on, bored soldiers will join together in teams and just rape and pillage towns in order to accumulate as much wealth as possible.

We meet Oliver, a 40-something shepherd, as he’s teaching a young boy, Luca, how to use a sling. Oliver is staying with Luca’s family, including Luca’s father, Gio, after having shown up a month prior. It’s clear that Oliver has some sort of shady past but, at least at first, it’s unclear what.

That changes when a group of mercenaries show up, knock Oliver out, then go kill the family he’s staying with. A brutal “Patrick Bateman (American Psycho)” like leader named Janick revels in the destruction. But what he’s really taken by is the knight’s sword that was hidden in the barn. It is highly unusual for a peasant family to have a sword like this.

When Oliver comes to and learns of the family’s demise, he has one goal and one goal only. Go find Janick and kill him. Oh, and kill anyone Janick knows as well. Janick is staying at a castle town called Volterra nearby. His mercenary crew lobbed off the head of the king there and turned the place into their own little vacation villa.

After a brief detour, Oliver heads to Volterra, breaks in, and kills a bunch of mercenaries. But Janick and his men get the upper hand, forcing Oliver to retreat into Volterra’s only church. Here, the bad guys aren’t allowed inside, giving Oliver an intermission to recover.  It’s also here where we learn of Oliver’s true roots – that he was the Pope’s assassin!  It’s only a matter of time before he comes back out swords-a-blazing. But will the evil Jannick ignore God’s will and break into the church to get the upper hand? We’ll have to see.

Today’s screenplay highlights a little-known screenwriting hack.

What you do is take a thriller/action/revenge type scenario, add a dash of urgency, and place it in olden times. The reason this works is because audiences don’t associate period pieces with these genres. They associate them with movies like Titanic or Shakespeare in Love or Legends of the Fall.

That’s a gigantic reason why 1917 did so well. It took this hack and exploited it to the extreme (going so far as to set the movie in real-time).

Today’s movie is a Wick-type setup but set in the 14th century. So, right away, it had my attention.

However, the setup has the same challenges as the Takens and the John Wicks do in modern day. They’re working with a cliched template. Cliched templates have an increased likelihood of creating cliched screenplays.

But I’m going to tell you how to get around that.

You have to first make us like the person or people who is going to be killed in the first act. Here, Dunn doesn’t just casually introduce us to the family. He creates a specific bond between Oliver and Luca. Oliver teaches Luca how to use his slingshot. He then imparts wisdom on him in a heartfelt exchange.

The amateur writer often screws this up because they speed through it. They don’t find any specific moment between the two. They just sort of show our hero saying, “Good job, champ.” But the point is, if you can nail that first part, you’re golden. Cause if we loved the person who was killed, we will want them avenged.

Next, you want to create a bad guy who we hate. And as simple as that sentence is to write, it’s frustratingly hard to do. Cause you figure, just make him really mean! Then we’ll hate him! But it doesn’t work like that for whatever reason.

What you have to do is make the bad guy mean in a way that feels a little more complex. Dunn does that here. Janick doesn’t initially come up to Oliver and start berating him or kicking his ass. He actually offers an exchange of goods. He says to Oliver, “I’ll buy your flock of sheep from you.” Oliver then politely discusses why he can’t sell him the sheep, which ends in Janick knocking him out.

It’s a small thing. But that sort of stuff is important when creating a villain because we don’t normally assign rationale to villains. So when they’re being reasonable, it makes them more of a real person in the reader’s eyes.

Of course, after Oliver refuses, Janick kicks him in the face and goes and kills the family, establishing his true awfulness. But our first impression of him is of a reasonable man, even if we sense that sinister element beneath the surface.

The reason this is important is because when you combine the killing of a person we genuinely liked with a villain who we genuinely hate, that right there can power an entire screenplay. You can make all sorts of mistakes along the way and it won’t matter. Because the core of your story is so solid. And this script does make mistakes. It makes several of them.

There’s this silly little side-quest where Oliver has to go into the forest to find two forest-women warriors who dress like demons because they know the secret way into the castle. Just have him find his own way into the castle.

And then there’s a period of the script after he takes out a bunch of mercenaries where he’s pulled into the church and we just hang out in the church for like 20 pages and Oliver talks to a bunch of people. It’s fine to take a breather after an intense sequence. But 20 pages? Come on, man.

But in the end, these missteps don’t have much of an effect on the story because the core is so strong.

It’s why I always say, spend the majority of your script-writing on the PILLARS of your story – the things that affect how the audience experiences the movie the most. Is it a nice little subplot in Titanic that the captain is mad that the powerful figures on the boat bully him into going faster than he wants? Sure. But getting that subplot right holds 1/1000th the power of making sure that we believe in and care about the love story between Jack and Rose.

I don’t say that lightly. If you had written Titanic, I would beg you to show it to at least five people and ask them, “Do you care about the love story between Jack and Rose?” Cause if they don’t, that means your biggest pillar is weak, which means you don’t have a script yet, no matter how good the rest of the script is written.

It appears that this script was (smartly) written to become a franchise. There are so many John Wick clones these days, how do you separate yourself? You separate yourself in the way that I told you to at the beginning of this review. Jump back 800 years or so. That world is so different from ours today that you can literally copy the exact same template as John Wick and it feels like a completely different movie.

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

What I learned: When you’re writing a big long action sequence, consider underlining the truly important moments to draw the attention of the reader towards them. Because, often, readers will skim through repetitive action. It’s the unfortunate nature of script-reading in Hollywood. Therefore, let them know the important beats by underlining them. Just don’t do it too often or the underlining will lose its power.

The Scriptshadow March Newsletter is in your Inboxes! You can discuss the newsletter on the official post here!

A couple of weeks ago I sat down with screenwriter (and actor, and director) Leah McKendrick on a rainy LA morning at my favorite coffee spot, Sightglass Coffee, just off of LaBrea. It’s this big open space with a lot of creatives working there and I always enjoy the energy. If anyone wants to come by and say hi, I’m there three times a week.  I’m usually working on an ipad with a white keyboard.

I wanted to catch up with Leah because she’s got a new romantic comedy called Scrambled, about a woman in her 30s who, because she doesn’t have a partner, has decided to freeze her eggs. It turns out to be an emotionally frustrating experience balanced out by a lot of humor, brought on by characters who seem utterly flummoxed by this choice of hers.

Our conversation was long and winding and while I originally planned on editing it down, I ultimately decided to keep it all because there’s some really great stuff here. Stuff about agents, dialogue, struggle, how to stay motivated, how to take your career into your own hands. I’m a huge fan of how Leah makes things happen in an industry that doesn’t want anything to happen. I’m going to pick things up BEFORE we started talking Scrambled. While waiting for Leah’s croissant (“I just got off the actress diet so I need carbs before we start.” “What’s the actress diet?” “When you don’t eat anything.”), Leah mentioned that she had developed a show at HBO before it fell through. So I asked her what it was like working with HBO…

LM: Yeah, I don’t know how it compares to other networks. I will say, all of the notes that I received were really smart. And really fair.

CR: Who was giving you notes from HBO? They assign you to a specific person there?

LH: Yes. Exactly. And that person’s team. But you have a point person you talk to. And that’s what’s really hard I think about making studio shows or studio films. There’s always another “box” higher up. Until it reaches the top. You’re never working with “the top.” So even if your point person absolutely loves what you guys are creating together, it still needs to work its way up the ladder. And if that top person changes for one of these 8 million reasons that top-people-changes happen, your project’s done. Because they don’t have any deep connections with your project. They weren’t a part of moulding it.

So that’s been something that’s been really hard for me is that I can be working with the studio very closely and they could be loving it and we could be really vibing but if their boss or their boss’s boss doesn’t get it? Like, “We gave it our best shot!” But I don’t view it that way. I view it like, “This is my blood sweat and tears. This is my baby.” But that’s just how this business works. Unless you’re getting to work with Nathan Kahane himself at Lionsgate. Like, it’s still got to make its way to Nathan and he’s still got to sign off on it. Thank god on Scrambled (laughs) Nathan signed off on it. There’s a good chance that Nathan could’ve been like, “No,” and Scrambled wouldn’t have been a Lionsgate movie. It still would’ve been made. But it wouldn’t have been a Lionsgate movie.

CR: So let’s talk about Scrambled because it feels like it’s the best example ever of “Write what you know.” Is that how this script came about? You thought, “I’m going through this. I need to write a script about it.”

LM: Yes. I was pissed off that I had to spend 14 grand (on freezing my eggs). So I was like, “I’ll use it as research and I’ll write a movie about it.” And I don’t even know how strong that urge was because more than anything I was like “I just have to get through this and freeze my eggs.” And I thought I wouldn’t write during that time because the pandemic was going on and that complicated things. But then out of curiosity, I started googling fertility films. And I realized there was no film about egg-freezing. It was always about the other methods. But those methods were about getting pregnant. And I was trying to do the opposite. I was trying *not* to get pregnant. Cause I didn’t have a guy. I was trying to buy more time. And that’s just so isolating and alienating for women. So I started writing down notes. And I just didn’t feel creative in that moment at all. And then as soon as I was done with my egg-freezing it was back to work. I had deadlines on other movies so I didn’t do anything with it until a year later after they killed Summer Loving (a Grease prequel Leah was working on) and they killed my directorial debut (another movie) and I was like, “I am not doing this anymore.” So I was like “I’m going to write my… give me three weeks, I will write my film about egg-freezing.”

CR: Is this something you ever discuss with your agent and management teams?

LM: (laughs) No. My team is the best. They know that I always go rogue.

CR: So then you guys never sit down together and they lay out a career game plan, such as, “Here’s what we think you should write? These types of movies are doing well so maybe you write one of them. This trend over here is hot so maybe write that?”

LM: Good question (thinks about it). No. In the beginning of my career they did. They tried to get me to chase moving targets. Nowadays no. And I would really advise writers away from that. “Knives Out did well so now go write a murder mystery.” Unless you LOVE murder mysteries, dope, go write it. But I know what I have, which is a pretty limited toolbox of things that I’m good at. So that’s what I write.

CR: You know your lane.

LM: Mm-hmm. I know my handful of lanes, I should say.

CR: Are you in the left lane or the right lane?

LM: Both at once, at all times.

Carson and Leah crack up.

LM: I’m in all the lanes at once which is what I should really say. But no, nowadays my team doesn’t try to get me to write in a genre or a specific type of film. They will say to me, “This project which you mentioned a year ago. What if we brought that one back?” Or, “You’re getting offered a lot of these types of genres. Do you want to do one of them?”

CR: So they’re coming to you with offers?

LM: Mm-hmm.

CR: And you consider that because it’s a paying job.

LM: Very rarely but at one point I did.

CR: Now, not so much?

LM: No, now (facetiously) I’m drunk with power. (Laughs). Now I don’t want to do anything that anybody wants me to do. Now I just want to build my own shit from the ground up and die on that hill. After they killed my TV show and they killed my two films, I just felt like I had done everything right. I’d played by the rules. I had been a good little soldier. And for what? You just killed everything.

CR: That seems to have had a big effect on you.

LM: A BIG effect on me. People feel like I should feel so much triumph because I made Scrambled and I do. But I’m so heartbroken. I will always be heartbroken because I worked so hard… here’s what I’m trying to explain because it’s not just my creativity. Because us artists have unlimited creativity. The more we sew, the more we reap. The more we create, the more we will create, the more that comes to us. BUT. That’s YEARS of my life. That’s what isn’t limitless. Is the days and the months and the years that I invested in building what they told me to. And then they didn’t even make it. So why would I continue to invest my one precious life into what you’re telling me to make if you’re not actually going to make it? So I was like, “The only way I have seen a way that has PROVEN ITSELF to be worthwhile and that has actually led to movies is when I was the one behind it. And I was the one who was saying this is when we’re shooting and this is how we’re going to get the money.

CR: So you wrote, starred, and directed in this movie.

LM: Yes.

CR: How did you do that? That’s hard.

LM: It was hard. But like I said, I was clean out of f$&%s. I was like, I’m not handing over my script. I’m not selling my script. Why would I go into development for three years? Regime change. More development. And another regime change. You kill it five years later. I don’t even own it anymore. It was an inefficient system that I could not subscribe to.

CR: One of the things that amateur screenwriters struggle with is a little bit of what you’re talking about but they feel even less power. They work on something and they don’t even know if an agent is going to pay them any attention. So that’s why a lot of them give up. They go through that process four times. Each time takes a year out of their life. They get rejected each time. And they finally say, “What’s the point?” But you seem immune to that. You continue to be more motivated than anyone I know.

LM: Yes.

CR: Where does that come from and how do you generate it?

LM: We’re going to get really deep for a second because it’s a sad answer. But that comes from the fact that my whole life I’ve felt behind. I have felt like I have failed. And it’s because I thought I was going to be Britney Spears at 16 years old. I was so frustrated as a kid. I had no interest in playing. I wanted to work. I don’t know where that comes from because my parents were not like, “You need to work.” But when you have had huge dreams your whole life and nothing has happened on the timeline that you wanted it to, it makes you quite desperate. It makes you feel like no one is getting it.

CR: I didn’t know you did singing.

LM: Oh yeah. I would make my own costumes and hire dancers with my allowance money when I was in high school.

CR: See, THAT. Right there. You went further than the average person would go. And this was technically before you were “behind” in life, right?

LM: Even then I felt behind. I wanted to be a Disney kid. I wanted to be Miley Cyrus and be on a Disney show. My parents were not into that. I was resentful. Cause I read about all these other kids whose parents would move with them to Hollywood and when I brought that up to my parents, they looked at me like… “We don’t even know what you’re talking about.”

Carson laughs.

CR: Let’s talk about Hollywood for a second and the pursuit of one’s dreams. Because there seems to be two ways to approach it. The first way is a negative one. You put your stuff out there and you think, “It’s probably going to be a no.” And the other way is positive. You put your stuff out there and, in spite of the no’s, you continue staying optimistic. You keep going. How do you keep that optimism having been through these numerous failures? How do you keep pushing no matter what?

LM: I think the thing that fed me and gave me that stamina all those years was that blind optimism of “I’m meant to be what I dream of becoming.“ Therefore, if I just reach the right people, they will see that I’m meant to do this and when that was proven wrong, it was a huge destruction of a worldview for me. Since then, what I think has happened, and this is a way I’ve evolved, and this is kind of sad also to be honest. Is that I’m not…….. good enough to be up there so I will have to make up for that in hard work. And that is why I decided that I had to write, and direct, and produce, and star, and finance (laughs). I will have to do EVERYTHING in order to make movies. I don’t believe anymore that I will reach the mountaintop. That I will reach the emperor and that he or she will tell me that I “made it.”

CR: (laughs) That moment never comes for anybody.

LM: (laughs) Exactly.

CR: Okay, so what I want to talk about is dialogue. You know I’m a fan of your dialogue. We talked about dialogue last time. This movie is very dialogue-driven. Have you learned anything new on the dialogue front since we last talked?

LM: Funny thing. Since we set up this interview, I’ve been waking up in a cold sweat in anticipation of this question. Cause I felt like last time I wasn’t prepared for it and I didn’t give a very good answer. That’s because a lot of it is instinctual to me.

CR: Yeah, that seems to be a common response from writers who are good at dialogue. They don’t have the best dialogue tips because they don’t have to think about it.

LM: Yeah.

CR: Well I have good news for you. I have it on good authority that if you give me a good answer, the Hollywood god will finally tell you you’ve made it.

LM: (laughs) I have one bit of advice I can give…

Quick Context Break: Both myself and Leah are big fans of the reality show 90 Day Fiancé. I have spared you from our conversation about the show in this interview. Don’t judge. Ryan Gosling is also a fan. Earlier, we were discussing one of the couples on the show. Their names are Geno and Jasmine. In the most recent episode, they got married. This is the context for Leah’s answer.

LM: On 90 Day Fiancé Geno and Jasmine were getting married and they were exchanging vows. So Geno’s giving his speech. His vows are what I would call “platitudinous.” They were enough for Jasmine and I love that. He’s not a writer by any means. And it was from the heart. But I forgot everything he said the minute he said it. Because everything that he said has been said a million times before. And I think that I am more interested in characters saying the wrong thing, or the semi-wrong thing, or going in a weird direction where you’re like, “ooh, this feels a little cringe.” And then coming around at the end and having one line that is so heartfelt. At least I will remember that moment and I will remember that writer who wrote that moment. Because if you’re going to sit up there and your vows are, “You complete me” and “I wasn’t myself until I met you” and “I’m going to love you forever.” No one remembers any of that.

So my boyfriend’s aunt was telling me a moment in my movie that really spoke to her and it’s this moment where a character is talking about their lost pregnancy. A miscarriage. And they had written a letter to their lost child. And they’re listing all these things that they wish they could’ve done together and one of them was, “I had all these plans to teach you how to not pluck your eyebrows, how to drive, and how to cook a chicken.” And she said the part about cooking a chicken just got her. And it’s like, “Why? Why is that?” Cause I don’t always know when I’m writing what’s going to hit, what is going to resonate. She said she couldn’t even explain what it was. Then we talked about it for a minute. And my thing was, as a Nicaraguan woman (my mom is from Nicaragua), it’s a big right of passage to pass on these skills. And one of those is roasting/cooking a chicken. And so I was just thinking about it in those terms. You know, when your kid graduates from high school and you’re sending them off to college, there are some skills that you want them to have. Right? You want them to know how to fold a fitted sheet. You want them to know how to cook at least something. Can you scramble an egg? So I was trying to come up with these basic go-tos of parenting. But the chicken really struck her, I think, because it’s visual. Because it’s specific. I think because it’s a rite of passage that only a mother would really know.

My larger point about dialogue is, the more general you get, the more forgettable it is. And the more specific you get, even if it’s the wrong thing, the more memorable it will be. And I would advise writers to use their own lives…. Like if you were going to teach your kid five things, what would those five things be? Get really specific. Because I promise you they wouldn’t be, “Oh, how to love.” (Laughs) You know? I don’t think that us as humans if we’re really in it or really honest, the more general it is, it means you’re not really trying. You’re not really thinking about it. It doesn’t matter how sweet your vows are. If they’re too general, they are in one ear and out the other.

CR: I like that answer because I deal with platitudes a lot and it’s a problem. More so in loglines lately. Wait, do you still have to write loglines as a working writer?

LM: I still write loglines. Yeah.

CR: Yeah, a big problem in the logline universe is general phrases that mean nothing. And for some reason, it’s hard for writers to understand that when I tell them not to do it. I don’t know why that is.

LM: You know what I think it is? And I mean no disrespect because I did it too. Sometimes we are *performing screenwriting.*

CR: What do you mean by that?

LM: You’ve seen so many movies your whole life. You’re like, “Oh, that’s what a movie is. That’s what movie dialogue is.” Which leads to imitation movie dialogue. As opposed to “I’m not imitating movies. I’m imitating real life.” And also, in some ways NOT imitating real life. Because real life can be quite boring. And like Geno saying his vows, real life vows are not always great. For some reason, I keep thinking of Jerry Maguire. That speech, “You complete me.” Yes you can say that that “hits” because… Tom Cruise. But I actually think it hits because he has not been that person for the entire film. The entire film he’s so self-involved. It’s all about him. It’s all about, “Who’s coming with me to help me because of who I’m supposed to be.”

CR: Jerry Maguire sounds like 16 year old you.

LM: (laughs) True. Yeah, he’s like who’s going to help me start my business, I’ve got to write this manifesto, I gotta get clients. Dorothy’s just on the sidelines. And there’s this big reversal in this final moment where he realizes I’m nothing without you. And they were able to encapsulate that moment through dialogue.

CR: Would you have written that line?

LM: (spends the longest time thinking about the question of any moment in the interview) I think… I think I would’ve written something along those lines. I don’t know if it would’ve been fucking epic.

Carson laughs.

LH: But I can feel in my heart as a screenwriter that that’s his journey. That his journey informed the line. And that’s why I get frustrated sometimes by studio notes is that, sometimes we’re so afraid of characters not being likable, that their arcs are (Leah visually mimics a flat line path with her hand) Wah-wahhh. And I’m like, “People will want to be on a ride and if somebody is… if you’re struggling to like them… that’s okay. As long as you give them that moment in the end. But I’m personally more comfortable having somebody be a little more self-involved, a little bit of a dick, a little selfish.

CR: What is your character in Scrambled like? Is she unlikable? What’s her flaw?

LM: No, I think people really like her. The flaw is, I would say, that there’s some arrested development there. She’s struggling to grow up.

CR: Now, you’re basing her on yourself, right? So you have to do some pretty intense self-reflection to write that.

LM: I mean, I think I’m still struggling to quote-unquote “grow up.” But I would point a finger at society telling me that growing up is being a mom. And I’m going, I don’t think that’s true. I think I’ve grown up in a lot of ways. And I am an adult in a lot of ways even though I don’t have a picket fence and a husband and 2.5 kids and an “acceptable” job. So yes, in some ways it’s her reckoning with society’s standards of what an adult woman should look like. But also the ways in which she herself has been infantilizing herself is a rebellion against that. And I think that’s totally me. I have a hard time with a lot of this stuff. I feel like I have worked my ass off and I have a career in the toughest industry in the world. Why isn’t that recognized as “adult?” Why isn’t that recognized as a huge triumph for me?

CR: Sounds pretty good to me.

LM: Well thank you. But you get it. Because you’re here. People who aren’t… have always been so curious about my love life. Always so worried about my age.

CR: What is that like for you? When you get that question? And are these moments in the movie?

LM: The whole movie is moments like that. I will tell you in one instance…I had just been hired for a big screenwriting job. I was very excited. It was early on in my writing career where I wasn’t getting offered big jobs and I had fought for this one. And I was telling a friend. I was so excited. I was feeling really good. And her question was, “Aren’t you worried about having kids cause you don’t have a boyfriend?” It felt so out of left field. And it kind of kept me up at night.

CR: What did that have to do with you getting the job?

LM: Excellent question. I think she may have been projecting some of her own fears on me. She was seeing me successful and wondering why she hadn’t been able to figure out that side of life yet. But I confronted her about it later and we worked it out.

CR: Is that in the movie?

LM: Not specifically but the whole movie is this specific conflict. How you shouldn’t measure a woman’s life achievements by these metrics. Husband. Baby. House. And when I did buy my house, it did feel like this moment where I was like, “Well I don’t have a husband. But I bought my house from this money that I made from my dreams. Every dollar that bought this house was from my acting and my writing. So fuck you. Cause I still got here. And I still have a house in the exact area that I wanted to get a house (in the Hollywood Hills) and it may just be alone but I’m not behind. And that was what was really hurtful. That everybody made me feel that I’d chosen my career over having a family and I had ruined my life because I had chosen my career. That’s what the film’s about.

CR: Random question. Was buying that house stressful?

LM: Super stressful.

CR: Could be a future screenplay. The struggles of buying a house.

LM: (laughs) It’s funny because when you start making money you become a bit existential about it. “What is this money I’m getting? What does it even mean?” But when you buy that house and you’re sitting in your chair looking out your window in the exact type of home you’ve always wanted in the exact area that you’ve always wanted, that’s when you realize what the money is for. That piece of mind and that safety. There’e something tangible I can point at. I had nothing when I moved here. My parents had cut me off because they said, “You have to do this on your own.” And now I have a house in the hills. And I achieved that by doing all the things that people told me not to do. So that’s my little arc.

CR: So when can we see Scrambled!

LM: It’s coming out March 1st on streaming! Apple, Amazon, and On Demand services. Oh and by the way, I just wanted to give a shout out to your site because last time I did an interview I was terrified to check the comments because I never check the comments cause they’re always mean. But the people on your site are so positive and supportive. It was really cool.

CR: Yeah, outside of a few outliers in the comments section, 99% of the people are very positive in their discussion about screenwriting.

LM: Oh, I wanted to say one more thing before we stop. We were talking earlier about screenwriters giving up. And whenever I hear that, it hurts my soul. Cause think of all the incredible scripts and stories that will never be written or made because of that. And regarding what I’m about to say, if this is not you and this is not in your heart, that’s fine, I understand that. But if you have this amazing story and nobody’s giving you the time of day, consider putting on that producer hat. Stop thinking that others passing on your screenplay is where it ends. I don’t care if you’ve written Citizen Kane. It doesn’t go anywhere without you. I’m of the Duplass brothers school of making movies. Which is, “How inexpensive can you make it?” “Is there a version you can do for 100 grand, 200 grand?” I know we would all love 5 million dollars to make our first movie. I know! But they’re not handing that shit out. I’m such a big believer that if you want to be making movies you have to be making movies.

So many people in this town don’t want to read your script. Like people send me their script and want me to read it – I DON’T EVEN READ. I’m trying to change that but we’re all busy, you know? It’s so hard to get people to read your script. But they *will* watch your movie. Making something small. Even if it’s a dope ass scene. Or even if it’s a teaser. I just feel like the thing that has done more for me in my career than anything else is making my own work. Taking my scripts and getting friends, raising a little bit of money, going to the festivals trying to turn it into something bigger, that has been my trajectory. And I know that it can be disguised by the fact that I’ve been writing studio films. And look, I’m grateful that I have a house like I talked about. But that didn’t get me Scrambled. The way that I got Scrambled is by saying I’m *not* doing that anymore. I am going to make this. I’m going to direct it. I’m going to star in it. I’m not taking no for an answer. And they try to dissuade you. A lot of companies offered me money if I wouldn’t act. Or I wouldn’t direct. They always do that. And it makes you feel sh&%$y. But my point is I wish that screenwriters also saw themselves as filmmakers, also saw themselves as producers. Because that will make all the difference in your life.

CR: Do you think you would be successful if you only wrote scripts to sell them?

LH: 100% no. 100,000% absolutely not. I think there are better writers who have smaller careers than me. The way that I got a screenwriting career was by making MFA (her first film about a campus rape). And I’ll be honest. I reread that script not that long ago and I was like, (laughs) “This is not good.” I thought it was the best shit ever when I wrote it. I thought I was Aaron Sorkin. I really did. But at the time it was the best that I could do. Truly. The beauty of it: it was a decent script, it was a better film. Because my director and main actress knocked it out of the park. And then it went to South by Southwest because South-by just f&%$ing gets it. And they can see… ideas. Even if they’re not fully formed. And it came out the week of the Weinstein scandal and the birth of #metoo. So there was some luck there.

But that happened and I had a screenwriting career. And then I was selling scripts right and left. And then I was getting called for adaptations. That would not have happened with the script alone. I’m telling you. The script was not that good. But the beauty of it is that I took my script and held it tight and I was like, “I’m muscling my way to the finish, eyes closed with or without any of you people.”

So I would just say, writers, I promise you, probably 90-95% of you are more talented than I am (laughs). But I’m very very very tenacious. And hard-working. And my secret to producing is just, I’m good at asking for things that I have no business asking for. I’m good at calling up everyone I know and going, “Have you ever thought of investing in film? Have you ever wanted to be in a movie? Can I use your house to shoot in? Can I use the campus to shoot in?” I’m good at that. I’m good at calling up SAG and saying, “This isn’t fair. You gotta let me star in my own film and not be creating all this red tape for me to rehearse. I’m good at calling everyone up and being like, “I need to get this done.” And the smaller the project, the more miracles will happen. That’s how it is. The bigger the project, the more bullshit will happen (laughs). The smaller and scrappier your film is, the more times you’ll have someone say, “Eh, all right, you can shoot in my backyard. All right, you can have free parking.” You know, I put every penny I had ever saved up in my life at the time into that film? 10,000 dollars. It was my hail mary. I didn’t have a plan B.

CR: Leah, you are the Katt Williams to my Shannon Sharpe. You held nothing back today. Thank you for coming out on this uncharacteristically rainy LA morning. Any last words?

LH: Go watch Scrambled!

Genre: Spy Thriller
Logline: No idea.
About: Only thing I know about this script is that one half of the writing team wrote Adam Sandler’s “Hustle.”
Writers: Taylor Materne and Jacob Rubin (story by Damian Chezelle)
Details: 120 pages

We’re going old-school Scriptshadow today, back to the days when I’d have no idea what I was about to read. I’d get a script, see the title, shrug my shoulders, and off to the races I went. These reads have the potential to be the most rewarding when the script turns out great. But they also have the potential to be complete and utter wastes of time. In the ultra-niche screenplay reading world, the stakes are high.

However, it’s a nice reminder that, as unknown screenwriting entities, this is what all of you are facing as well. You are sending a script to someone who has no idea who you are and you are saying, “Please read this.” Think about that for a second. When have you ever read something from someone you’ve never heard of before and a script that you have zero context for? Probably never. So why would you expect someone else to do the same for you?

The only way is if your concept sounds really good to them. Then, and only then, will they be willing to take a chance on your script.  It’s not because of some noble reason – that they feel like they owe it to their moral conscience to give people a chance. lol. Not even close. They will read your script if, and only if, they think it will make them money down the road. That’s because 90 minutes of their time is 90 minutes that they could be spending on something else that makes them money. That’s why it’s so important to have a strong concept.

There’s a bonus round to this. If they don’t like your script, but they like you as a writer, then they can still make money off you, which means they’ll sign you or hire you to write another project. But, again, they can’t find out you’re a good writer if they don’t read your script. And they won’t read your script if you send them some dull logline (“An Alabama fisherman tries to keep his fishing business afloat while confronting old demons.”). Which is why you always want to be working with loglines that have some bite to them – the kind of logline where if you saw it floating around, you’d say, “I need to read that script!”

While it’s true that you can write a low-concept script and run into an industry person who ALSO happens to like that subject matter (lo and behold, the manager you sent it to is an Alabaman who loves fishing!) resulting in them requesting a read, you’re still putting yourself in what I call “the screenplay lottery.”

Putting yourself in the screenplay lottery is the act of writing a script that doesn’t have a strong concept. Of course it’s possible to sell that script. It’s possible to sell a script about anything. But the tamer your concept, the more you’re depending on that random lucky serendipitous connection. If you’re armed with a strong concept, you skip that line and go straight to the front, where you’re competing with a way smaller pool of scripts.

Long intro for this script! Let’s see what it’s about.

Diego Agen is what’s called a “language officer.” To be honest, I was never entirely sure what that was, but I think it’s a type of secret agent for the French government who specializes in knowing a lot of languages. If you’re confused, just do what I did. I imagined Diego as earth’s version of C-3PO.

Diego works a desk job, which he’s perfectly content with considering he’s got a wife and young child. But his world is disrupted when an old friend from the agency, Telander, tells him he’s got a field job for him. Diego doesn’t want to do it which pisssssssses Telander off. He talked this guy up to his superiors and now Diego is dissing him? So Telander says if he doesn’t do the job, he’ll demote him. Diego has no choice. He’s in.

Diego flies to Marseille where he must get in close with a woman named Saveria, a local kingpin. Her assistant was killed recently, which has led to more crime in the area (I guess the assistant used to curtail crime) and that means French citizens are getting killed. The government doesn’t want that so they want Diego to get in there and patch things up somehow (no, I don’t know how).

First, Diego must befriend a local night club promoter named Paulu. Paulu will take him to meet a tough dude named Roccu. Roccu is the son of Saveria, the head honcho he needs to meet. But within 24 hours, Roccu kidnaps Diego and says that Paulu stepped out on him. He gives Diego a gun and tells him to kill Paulu. If you don’t kill Paulu, we kill you. So Diego has no choice. The desk agent brutally murders Paulu.

This gets Diego in with Saveria, who tells him about her murdered assistant. She thinks this dude named Walid did it. So she needs him to get close to Walid. Diego uses his lawyer skills (I guess he’s a lawyer as well?) to win Walid an important court case, so now Walid is his buddy. Walid even introduces Diego to his hot sister, giving him his blessing to have sex with her. All this happens by page 60 by the way. Yeah, to say this script is filled with plot is the understatement of the millennium.

Diego eventually learns that Walid is the killer (of the original assistant) but that Roccu ordered him to do it and didn’t tell his Gangster mama. This means the mom and her son both wanted the opposite result. Eventually, though, a Godfather-like war erupts and many people are killed. Did our boy Diego survive? Unfortunately, you’ll never find out unless they adapt this into a TV show cause I can promise you nobody’s ever going to make this film (he lives).

This is the kind of script that if your mind drifts for even a second, you’re lost. For that reason, readers hate these scripts. Let me rephrase that. If the script is really good, readers love these scripts. But if you’re requiring 5x the attention from us as the average script and you don’t deliver something awesome, we will get very very mad at you.

I mean consider this. A guy is hired to go on a job. The job is to get close to this woman. But before he gets close to the woman, he must meet up with a local connection. The connection then connects him with the son of this woman he’s trying to get close to. He must do a job for the son and that allows him to be introduced to the mom. The mom says we had this guy working for us and someone killed him. We think it’s this guy. So go get close to him (are you following this – we got close to a guy to get close to a woman to get close to another guy).

Now, Diego is something called a language officer. But when he gets to the guy connected to the woman connected to the guy, he’s all of a sudden a lawyer. Like, a real live lawyer. We see him win a case in order to win the trust of the 3rd guy (Walid). Did he just happen to luckily also be a lawyer? Or was this all in the plan from the get go? Cause how would he have known that the guy he was introduced to from the woman introduced to him from the guy who introduced her would’ve needed a lawyer?

Confused? Yeah, welcome to how it was reading this script.

In the writers’ defense, I don’t want to work to understand this story. Some readers love spy films and they love the 15 dots they must connect in order to understand a plot point so if they’re confused, they’ll go back in there and re-read everything until they figure it out. My mom is one of those people. Maybe she should’ve reviewed this script. She watched all five seasons of Fauda and somehow understood all of it. But for me, I don’t want to do the work unless the story surrounding the work is amazing. And, in this case, it is not.

It’s not bad. But as I like to remind writers, the goal is not to write a “not bad” script. It’s not even to write a “good” script. Both those scripts will be rejected. Takes me back to that old screenwriting book, “Liked it Didn’t Love it.” A producer wrote that book to remind writers that readers need to LOVE something in order to do something with it. “Like” doesn’t cut it.

And by the way, I’m not saying these writers aren’t trying to write something we’ll love. We’re all trying to write something great. I’m just reminding you that this is the reason you can never half-ass anything. Cause even when you try your best, you’ll still, most likely, write something average. Any level of effort less than that? You’re guaranteed to write something bad.

The script has its moments and is best when it’s pushing the envelope. There’s a scene where Diego is forced to kill his connection in Marseilles that’s intense as hell. The best scene in the script by far. And then Diego also ends up sleeping with and getting involved with Walid’s sister, which is a choice that 99% of writers wouldn’t have made (due to Diego having a wife and newborn). Writers are terrified of making their hero unlikable and will do anything to avoid it.

I also liked that the writers took their time setting up Diego. A lot of writers would’ve sent Diego off to Marseilles the second Telander asked him. But by staying with Diego longer – seeing him at home with his wife and kid – it helped him feel a lot more relatable and real. It also made those later moments, like sleeping with Walid’s sister, more impactful.

Unfortunately, the script has enough plot for – I’m not even exaggerating here – 10 seasons of TV. The story takes place over 14 months! So much for the “U” in GSU. At a certain point I was like, “Stop. Stop making me memorize 6000 things to enjoy your story!” For that reason, it wasn’t for me.

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

What I learned: This is not a one-size fits all lesson but I have found a definite correlation between broader titles and weak scripts. Usually, if you don’t know what your script is about – if you don’t have a clear story you’re telling, you become unsure what your title is. You start to pull up higher and higher until your title is so macro that it’s borderline generic. “Marseille.” If I told you only that title and nothing else, would you be able to imagine this movie? My guess is no. Using yesterday’s movies as a baseline, Mean Girls, The Beekeeper, and Anyone but You all have titles that more specifically reference their stories.

February Showdown Deadline is THIS THURSDAY! It is the “First Line Showdown.” Details are here at this link. Get those submissions in!!!

I think it’s now safe to say that if you’re a Superhero Movie…. “Uh oh.”

I have to give it to the box office media. They will do ANYTHING to spin the numbers.

Madame Web made 26 million dollars this weekend.

There’s a small caveat to that: OVER SIX DAYS.

Somehow, the industry has created a six-day weekend. In all my years of covering this stuff, I’ve never heard of a six-day weekend! Nobody has. Therefore, nobody knows what to make of these numbers. “One Love” made 51 million bucks. Which is a good take. But they had three extra days to do it. So it’s confusing.

However, it does prove that music biopics continue to be one of the safest bets in town.

Now you’re probably wondering, “Why don’t they make a million of them then?”

Well, as I found out, personally, they’re very tricky to produce because you’re usually dealing with bands. And the nature of any band is that they don’t all get along. Therefore, the band members don’t want to make a movie that benefits the other band members. Or they hold up approval just to spite the person in the band they hate.

Imagine writing a script that Paul Simon loves more than anything. But then you send it to Art Garfunkel and Art doesn’t come off as strongly in the script. So he says, “No, I don’t like it.” Now you’ve got to rewrite it to make Art look better. But then in the next draft, Paul thinks he’s being overshadowed by Art so he says no. Now you’ve got to go back and write it again.

And these rewrites take time. Months. And when you send it to each artist again, you may not be a priority. Musicians have other things going on in their lives. So they get to the script when they get to it. Which might be half a year since the last draft. And if one of them says no, now you gotta write another draft.

And you’re a screenwriter so you need to make money so you may have to go work a job before you have time to work on the next draft of Paul & Art. You can start to see why it’s so hard to make one of these movies.

This is why people choose singular artists like Bob Marley because, at least that way, you’re only dealing with one person. However, even singular artists, if dead, mean you’re often dealing with multiple family members who own the rights, which puts you right back in the same position you were in with the bands. Musical artists may have multiple kids with multiple partners, and a lot of those kids don’t like each other. So now you’ve got to make all of them happy.

Then you’ve got to see it from the writer’s and producer’s side. They know that, in order to make a good movie, you have to show the BAD along with the good. But the artists and the families only want to portray the good.

So you have to find a way around that. Luckily, these iconic musicians are so beloved that you’ll have people who show up just to celebrate the music and don’t really care that the movie is, basically, a commercial for that music.

By the way, this is why it’s so much easier to write a biopic about a historical figure. Because you can just base the movie off a book, like Nolan did for Oppenheimer, and not have to get any approval from the family. It’s good PR if you get the family on board, of course. But you don’t have to.

Technically, you could do the same with musicians. You could make a movie based on a book about them without their approval. You wouldn’t get sued either. However, you wouldn’t be able to use any of their music. For anything music-related, you have to get the artist’s permission. That’s why the musicians and bands have you over the barrel versus traditional biopics. You can’t tell a musician’s story without putting their music in the film, which places you in that unenviable position I was just alluding to of trying to win everyone involved over.

To that end, just getting a Bob Marley movie in front of audiences is a monumental achievement. Just to reiterate HOW HARD it is, they’ve been trying to do it for 25 years.

I’m not a music biopic guy, as you know. But based on the trailers, it looks like they got it right. They cast it perfectly. That actor, who I’ve never heard of before, looks great in the main role (ironically, he looks nothing like Marley in real life). And I’m always happy when any movie outside of the studio superhero machine does well. Which brings us back to superhero talk.

Madame Web’s disastrous box office is the result of several things.

Number 1 is the danger of trends. There was this period 2-3 years ago where it was female superheroes or bust. You didn’t even think of introducing a new male superhero. This is why The Marvels was greenlit and it’s also why Madame Web was greenlit.

But the viewing landscape changes quickly and people got tired of being pandered to and told what to like.  People want movies that their creators are passionate about. They want the people involved to say, “I’ve got an amazing idea for a superhero movie.” Madame Web is clearly designed to fit into the “all-female” superhero trend. And it paid the biggest price for doing so. This is a mega-bomb.

How does it affect future superhero movies? At this point, only two types of superhero movies are going to work. Sequels to mega-franchises with already beloved actors playing the superheroes. That’s why Deadpool 3 is going to be the biggest movie of the year. Or fresh ways into the superhero genre – movies that disrupt the typical formula and tone. The latter is getting harder and harder to do. Movies like Ragnarok, Dark Knight, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Logan.

I noticed they just announced a new Fantastic Four movie. It sounds like they’re TRYING TO DO something different with it, as it will be set in the 1960s. But let’s be real here. This franchise has never worked. It’s failed on three separate occasions (yes, there’s a little-known 1994 Fantastic Four film that turned out so bad, they never released it!).

I don’t know why it doesn’t work. Having the main guy have the lamest powers (stretchy power) probably factors into it. But Johnny Storm is rad. Silver Surfer was my favorite superhero ever growing up and just oozes cool. And who wouldn’t want to watch a Hulk vs. Thing fight?

But, like I said, you’re releasing the film during the most competitive time in box office superhero history.

The big wildcard remains James Gunn. James Gunn has made a name for himself for doing things differently. So we know that he’s going to bring something different to the DC films. But, I mean, how different can you be? To be clear, I’m not giving up on him. I’m only saying that the job is going to be SOOOOOO hard.

I think he’s got the right idea, though. He’s doing what Christopher Nolan did when he revolutionized comic book movies with Batman Begins, which is going in the opposite direction of what everyone else was doing. Everybody else was making these off-the-wall superhero characters who could do anything. Nolan grounded his hero in reality, which made him more relatable than any other superhero character.  Technically, anyone could be *this* version of Batman.

It sounds like Gunn is going away from this ridiculous multi-verse insanity that’s quietly destroying the Marvel universe and basing his first film, Superman, on that purity and idealism that made the movies so popular in the 80s. I don’t know if it’s going to work. But it’s the best route for success.

So, did anyone see Madame Web or One Love over the weekend? What did you think?

With Valentine’s Day only 24 hours away, it’s only natural that we review a script about LOVE…. and killing.

Genre: Rom-Com/Action
Premise: (from Black List) After Liv, a world-class hitwoman, breaks up with her boyfriend, Martin, he puts out a massive contract on his own life to get her attention. What Martin doesn’t realize is that it’s an open contract with a 48-hour expiration, so now every assassin in the western hemisphere is coming after him. Liv makes a deal to keep him safe until the contract expires, if he pays her out the full bounty. With the clock ticking, the two must elude some of the world’s most prolific killers.
About: This finished Top 20 on last year’s Black List. The writer has one credit, which was pretty recent! Copshop!
Writer: Kurt McLeod
Details: 111 pages

Florence Pugh in a fun role for once?

It may not seem like it sometimes. But we here at Scriptshadow support LOVE.

TayTay and Travis? They’re like two giant halves of a heart in my eyes.

And so today, just 24 hours before the loviest day of love on the calendar, I present to you this Black List rom-com.

29 year old Martin is a software engineer who can count the amount of times he’s had sex on two hands. Not people, mind you. But ACTUAL TIMES. To put it mildly, Martin is not suave with da ladies.

MARTIN’S DATING PROFILE

PHOTO [harsh lighting, unflattering angle, same smile]
OCCUPATION: Software programmer, self-employed
LIKES: Romantic comedies, good wine, picnics in the park, spa days, quality time with family and friends
DISLIKES: Toxic masculinity, conspicuous consumption, heights, enclosed spaces, public swimming pools
LOOKING FOR: That perfect someone to spend the rest of my life with…

But due to a dating app screw-up, Martin has somehow been matched with the drop-dead gorgeous Lex. Lex does not hold back her disappointment when she arrives at the restaurant date, looking at Martin and saying, “Wait, who the f&%$ are you?”

LEX’S DATING PROFILE

PHOTO [sexy silhouette, sunglasses, bangs hiding pouty face]
OCCUPATION: work
LIKES: no
DISLIKES: yes
LOOKING FOR: no strings

For some reason (aka, because the writer needed a movie) Lex kind of likes Martin. So she sleeps with him that night and then starts sleeping with him on the regular. However, after several months, she ghosts him. And soon after is when we learn that Lex is a big game hitwoman. Which partially explains why she keeps her relationships short and surface-level.

Cut to a year later and Lex is following up a gigantic score – 2 million bucks. The reason it’s so big is because it’s an open target. Any assassin can collect. But when she gets to the target, she finds out it’s Martin, who’s been doing some development and looks a lot better. Martin says that he bought the contract on himself cause he’s since learned about her job and realized this was the only way to see her again.

Due to some complicated financials and a hit-man loophole, Lex concludes that she’ll make more money off the hit if she waits until it’s called off (or something). So she still plans to kill Martin. But, in the meantime, she has to help him evade all the other hitmen trying to kill him. However, when her handler, Francis, realizes she’s trying to game the system, she puts a separate hit out on Lex. So now Lex and Martin are running for their lives and, quite possibly, falling in love.

Let me start off by saying I’m noticing a trend in a lot of the scripts I’ve been reading.

Which is: THE FIRST SCENE (OR SEQUENCE) IS THE BEST SCENE IN THE ENTIRE SCRIPT.

The scene where Lex shows up for this date with Martin and Martin bumbles through it is really funny. Nothing ever quite reaches the perfect balance of awkwardness and humor as this date.

Writing a great scene is hard. So kudos if you can achieve it at any point in your script. But if your first scene is your best scene, that means that the reading experience gets worse the further through your script the reader gets. Which is not what you want.

So why does this happen?

Writers want to show off the coolness of their concept right away. So they come up with an early scene that sells their concept. Also, the earlier you are in your script, the less dependent you are on the plot, which hasn’t locked you into any scenes yet. So you have more freedom to play around and have fun.

But you can’t allow that to be the best scene in your script. You just can’t.

When you write a great scene early, consider that THE BAR. And then, every subsequent major scene, try to clear that bar. If you can’t honestly say that your later scenes are better than that first scene, rewrite them.

This all comes down to laziness. Lazy writers start strong then fizzle out. Strong writers start strong then keep getting better. Yes, it will require more effort on your part. But embrace that challenge! Don’t be Mr. Lazy Pants.

Especially if you’re allowing your alter ego, Movie Logic A-Hole, to do your writing.
Movie Logic A-Hole is your lazy alter-ego. If it were up to him, he wouldn’t do any outlining, he wouldn’t do any research, when he ran into a script problem he wouldn’t try to figure it out. Instead, Movie Logic A-Hole barrels through the script regardless of whether what he’s writing makes real-world sense or not. As long as it makes “movie logic” sense, that’s all that matters to him.

Love!

Movie Logic A-Hole makes a big appearance in today’s script, destroying any legitimate chance the script has of working. This entire movie is based on the idea that a man who’s trying to get his assassin girlfriend back puts a 2 million dollar blanket hit out on himself. Let me reiterate that. A man knowingly pays money to have every major hitman in the world try to kill him in the hopes that his hit-woman ex-girlfriend will get to him first and he can try to get back together with her.

Movie Logic A-Hole is very persuasive. When Real World Writer says to him, “But no one would ever really do that,” Movie Logic A-Hole replies, “Chillllll dude. It’s a commmeddy. Comedies are funny. They don’t have to make sense.” When Real World Writer says to him, “But how could he know that another hitman wouldn’t find him first and kill him?” Movie Logic A-Hole replies, “Because she’s like, the best. She would get to him before any other hitman.” When Real World Writer says, “But how would he know that she was the best? I’m not sure you can go on a guess when you’re putting your life on the line.” Movie Logic A-Hole replies, “You’re thinking way too deep, man. Nobody cares about that stuff when they’re watching a movie.”

While it’s true that audiences never think of the word “logic,” when watching a movie, they do know when something feels off. If they sense that the storytelling is lazy, they stop being engaged. That’s the primary effect of movie-logic. If you use it enough, your story takes on a general feeling of laziness.

If you want to see how this looks in practice, go watch “Lift” on Netflix. Notice how quickly you stop caring about what’s happening. That’s because many of the creative choices (especially the sequence that opens the movie) reek of movie logic. It feels LAZY.

With that said, there is room for Movie Logic A-Hole to be involved in your screenwriting journey. Especially in comedy, where, if you have to make a choice between funny or logic, you pick ‘funny.’  BUT ONLY OUTSIDE THE MAIN PILLARS OF YOUR PLOT. You don’t want to hammer movie-logic nails into the pillars of your story. Those pillars need to be as logically strong as possible. This entire movie rests on the idea that a guy would put a contract on his life in the hopes that his hitwoman ex-girlfriend will get to him before the other killers. That’s the aspect of the story that needs to be the most convincing. Yet it’s the least convincing.

Save your movie logic for stupid stuff like a killer has your heroes trapped in the back of an alley and then a crazed cat leaps out of nowhere onto the killer’s head, allowing them to get away. I’d prefer you *not* write this scene. But if you’re going to use movie logic, that’s where you want to use it – on stuff that isn’t directly tied to major plot points.

The most dangerous thing about Movie Logic A-Hole is that he’s super convincing. Especially late at night. Especially deep into a writing session. Especially when a deadline is coming up and you’re running out of time. Movie Logic A-Hole starts whispering all types of nonsense in your ear and, unfortunately, he’s persuasive.

So watch out for him. Because he’s the difference between a solid well-constructed story and a messy weak one.

Ever since pure rom-coms became excommunicato, these “rom-coms with an edge” took their place. So I wouldn’t be surprised if this became a movie. It would make for a fun trailer. But the script wasn’t for me. Does this mean love loses?

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

What I learned: Okay, let’s take a look at the disastrous logline the Black List included…

After Liv, a world-class hitwoman, breaks up with her boyfriend, Martin, he puts out a massive contract on his own life to get her attention. What Martin doesn’t realize is that it’s an open contract with a 48-hour expiration, so now every assassin in the western hemisphere is coming after him. Liv makes a deal to keep him safe until the contract expires, if he pays her out the full bounty. With the clock ticking, the two must elude some of the world’s most prolific killers.

That is more of a mini-summary than it is a logline. With loglines, it’s about conveying the concept, the main character, the goal, and the major source of conflict. You should aim for 30 words or less. With that in mind, we get my rewrite…

After his hitwoman girlfriend ghosts him, a lovesick introvert takes out a 2 million dollar contract on himself in the hopes of luring her back into his life.

I do basic logline analysis for $25. E-mail me if you want to get your logline in shape! carsonreeves1@gmail.com