Genre: Indie Drama/Dark ComedyPremise: A woman is forced to help her aging “ladies man” father get his life back together after a drunk-driving arrest.
About: Buttercup will be directed by Niki Caro, the writer-director of one of my favorite movies from 2002, Whale Rider. It is written by newcomer Alice O’Neil, of whom this will be her first produced credit. The project is set to star Jennifer Aniston and indie-film mainstay Alan Arkin.
Writer: Alice O’Neil
Details: 114 pages – 2/12/09 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).

I don’t know why I’m so fascinated with Jennifer Aniston’s career but I am. I think her being hot is part of it. But also the fact that here’s this woman with all the money in the world, who’s beautiful and smart and funny, and yet it is and will always be impossible for her to find a man. Your dating “level” when you’re that high profile includes like 4 guys, and you already lost one of them to Angelina Jolie. Ah yes, Scriptshadow, sponsored in part by Us Weekly.  But seriously, they should make a movie about that. An actress who has it all but has no chance at finding a husband because her lifestyle is too big.

Anyway, Aniston will next hop into the role of Rosemary Boyle, a confused 30-something woman still trying to figure out her life. She doesn’t know what she wants to do. She doesn’t know who she wants to be. She has an artist boyfriend who she’s considering moving in with, yet also has phone sex with her boss every evening. It’s not clear what Rosemary gets out of either relationship, but the point is, this woman’s having a hard time getting it together.

However, Buttercup is less about these issues and more about her relationship with her father, 73 year old Mike Boyle. Mike was Axe Body Spray before there was Axe Body Spray, the kind of guy who could get laid off a wink and a smile. So far be it from him to let some silly 30 year marriage get in the way of this Wilt Chamberlin like lifestyle. Mike tallied up more women than some small countries and even now, at 73 years old, he’s still looking for the next big score.

Poor Rosemary was too taken by her father’s charm to notice this when she was younger, but now that her mom’s dead, she’s finally come to terms with the reality of the situation: her dad is a fuck-up. At 73, Mike still hasn’t grown up. And if you ask him, it’s because he never planned on living this long in the first place. Mike is living hand-to-mouth, using the little money he does make to drink and pick up girls at the bar.

So it probably isn’t a surprise that one night, after pulling a Jerry Buss and landing a pair of 21 year olds, Mike crashes into a tree. He and the girls are fine, but the judge, who sees Mike more than her own children, has finally had enough of him. The only way she’s not throwing him in jail is if she takes away his car privileges and Rosemary agrees to take care of him. If he gets in trouble, not only will he be fucked, but Rosemary will as well.

Rosemary uses this as an excuse to avoid her own problems (her boyfriend wanting to move in) and starts hanging out with her father more, who of course doesn’t believe he needs help. And all of this is complicated by the fact that in the end, Rosemary just wants her father’s attention, his love. And how do you ask for that love when you’ve been officially designated to keep your father in line.

I started this review out with way too much estrogen so I’m going to emit some testosterone for a second to even it out. There was a famous Monday Night Football game back in 2006 where the heavily favored Chicago Bears eeked out a win against the sacrificial lamb Arizona Cardinals. Afterwards, the slighted Cardinals coach, who clearly was upset about being picked to lose by 50 points, screamed out, “The Bears are who we thought they were!!!”

The Chrernobyl worthy meltdown led to the team’s self-destruction but that’s a conversation for another day. The point is, Buttercup is exactly what you think it is. It’s a slow slice-of-a-fucked-up-life indie flick that isn’t trying to be remarkable. It just wants to exist. It wants to explore that awkward time in the life cycle when the kids start becoming the parents and all the weirdness that comes along with that.

Does it succeed in making that story entertaining? I’d say for the most part, yes. Mike is definitely a fun character and there are parts of the script that keep the pages turning, such as Rosemary’s inappropriate relationship with a priest.

But the big problem I had with Buttercup is the character of Rosemary herself. I never really understood who she was. There seems to be this great opportunity to explore her father’s “player” lifestyle and how it’s affected the way Rosemary sees relationships. She has a “perfect” boyfriend, yet she has a phone-sex relationship with her boss, yet she starts trying to bang a priest. So the opportunity is there to show how her father’s lack of commitment has doomed her to the same fate. Yet all three of these relationships feel incidental, as if they’re simply there to spice things up, ignoring a possible connection with her dad even though that might be more interesting. 

One of the hardest things to do in a script is create a complicated character.  The way films are designed, there isn’t a lot of time to get too in depth with a character.  Most of the time, we really only have the opportunity to explore that one “fatal flaw” a character may have and see if we can’t resolve it by the end of the film.  If you create too many competing characteristics, sure, you’ve created a complex character, but in the process you may have confused your audience as to who that character is.  I felt a little of that going on here. Rosemary has so many different things going on that I was never able to identify her defining traits – the things that locked down who she was as a person. Was she a player like her father who could never settle down? Was she having a mid-life crisis? Was she someone who had a problem making decisions?

One of the things I loved about Everything Must Go is you knew who the main character was right away. He was a recovering alcoholic who lost his job, his wife, and his house. We know exactly where he is and where he needs to go to fix himself. But here, I kept asking, Who is Rosemary? What is it we’re supposed to be getting from her?

I also thought O’Neil could’ve forced the issue to create more conflict. In the solid “Smart People,” when Dennis Quaid’s uptight character becomes immobile, he’s forced to ask his deadbeat brother Thomas Hayden Church to move in and help with the responsibilities. Because Quaid is so dependent, he has no choice but to let Church, whom he’d otherwise never trust, help. That creates a great amount of conflict within the living situation.

Here, we’re told by the judge that Rosemary has to take care of her father, specifically his driving duties. But almost immediately, we realize she doesn’t have to do this. Mike still drives his own car, ignoring the court order. And Mike continues to live his own life, with Rosemary popping in occasionally for an awkward conversation or two. Although the court-appointed order may have a sitcomish feel if it’s executed too literally, I felt that if you’re going to do it, let’s commit all the way. Move Rosemary into the house. Make it so she doesn’t allow Mike to drive, that she doesn’t allow Mike to do the things he’s used to doing. Create that conflict that’s going to force these two characters to address the issues they’ve been ignoring for the past 30 years.

Despite these problems, I thought there was enough here to make it worth the read. There are some funny moments (my favorite is when a drunk Rosemary goes to the seminary at night and starts throwing rocks at the priest’s window), Mike is a solid character, and I think it has some nice things to say about arrested development and making yourself accountable for your actions. I was just looking for more conflict, more of a commitment to the plot.

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

What I learned: Use your protagonist’s job to tell us who she/he is. One thing I didn’t dig here was that we’re not really sure what Rosemary’s job is until late in the story, and this contributed to the reason I couldn’t get a feel for her character. Jobs are one of the easiest ways to tell us who a character is. If your character is an accountant, that might tell us they’re analytical and boring. If they’re a producer, that might tell us they’re a Type-A personality. If they’re a tattoo artist, that might tell us they’re rebellious and/or laid back. Create your character’s job with the intent of telling us who your character is.

Genre: Thriller
Premise: Two war veterans play a deadly game of cat and mouse up in the mountain wilderness.
About: This is the project John McTiernan, director of Die Hard and Predator, signed onto right before he started his year stint in jail for lying to the Feds over wiretapping. The script has actually been around for a while, making the 2008 Black List, and the writer may be familiar to you, since I just reviewed his 1.5 million dollar supersale of “Snow White And The Huntsman” a couple of weeks ago. As I mentioned in that post, this is the script that won the 2008 Script Pimp Screenwriting Contest. After the win, Evan was contacted by several managers and ultimately signed with Energy Entertainment. He moved to LA and a few months later he met with some agents, finally signing with UTA.  Daugherty went to NYU Film School and had written 9 screenplays before he broke through with Shrapnel.
Writer: Evan Daugherty
Details: 91 pages, 10-3-08 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).

Your script length is what it is. If you’re telling a sprawling epic over six time periods, it’s going to be long. If you’re telling a thriller about a man stuck in a coffin, it’s going to be short. But as a gentle reminder, nobody has time in Hollywood. Or at least the people who matter don’t. So when they stare down a 130 page behemoth, they already hate you. They hate you for making them say they’d read a script that’s going to take 130 minutes out of a schedule that’s already requiring them to work 2 hours longer than they or their family want them to that day.

Now I’m no Hollywood producer, but Friday I had a million things going on, so there was no way in hell I was picking a script that was taking two hours. I needed something in the 90 minute range. When I saw Shrapnel at 92 pages, I said, “Perfect.” I’m not trying to start another page length debate here. Brigands of Rattleborge is humongous (which it should be) and it’s number 3 on my Top 25 list. All I’m saying is, keep in mind who your audience is – people who are constantly in a hurry. You want to make their experience as enjoyable as possible.

Anyway, Shrapnel is a simple story in the vein of Deliverance or The Most Dangerous Game. It’s the 70s, around the time of the Vietnam War, and an out of shape 50 year old World War II veteran named Ford has decided to live the rest of his life in the wilderness, free of society, free of complications or relationships. This man has paid his dues. Now he just wants to be left alone.

His only inconvenience is the shooting pain up the side of his leg that comes around every so often, the result of some wayward shrapnel from back in the war. It slows Ford down but it never stops him.

One day, while driving through the winding mountain roads, Ford’s car breaks down. It just so happens that a man is passing by at the time. He’s ragged, late 40s, talky but for the most part unremarkable. We’ll get to know him as Osterman. Osterman helps Ford fix his car which leads to Ford inviting him to his cabin to wait out the approaching storm.

The two get to talking and Osterman encourages Ford to join him for some hunting the next day. Ford’s reluctant but Osterman seems like good company and it’s not like Ford’s planner is bursting with activity. It’s pretty easy to cancel “Stare at plants for an hour.”

So off the two go, splitting up at one point, staying in contact via walkie-talkie, innocently concocting a strategy, when all of a sudden Osterman starts blurting out random German, his cordial friendly tone ditched for a sinister-as-shit one. It doesn’t take us or Ford long to realize that Osterman didn’t come here to hunt animals.

He came here to hunt Ford.

And so begins a mano-a-mano duel in which Ford tries to escape Osterman, whose relentless pursuit indicates that there is something personal going on here, something that goes back way before two guys meeting on the side of a mountain. So when these two men clash, when they twist and turn and squirm and try and take the life from one another, a troubling secret will be revealed that ties it all together in the end.

Shrapnel is one of those simple concepts that, if done right, can be really good. But with only two characters, it’s hard to stretch these puppies out to feature length. They usually require a handful of things to make them work.

The first is the surprises or twists in the film. If you have a large cast of characters in your script, when things slow down in one storyline, you can always jump to another one. Can’t do that here. These are the only characters you’ve got. So when things get slow or when it starts to feel like not much has happened in a while, you need to throw in a surprise or a twist to spice things up again.

In this case, during one scuffle, Ford notices a permanent scarred “O” on the back of Osterman’s neck. His reaction tells us he knows what this “O” means. This seems to change Ford’s assessment of the situation. We’re not exactly sure why, but we know that at some point we’re going to find out. So this little “twist,” this little “surprise” spices the screenplay up at a moment where it was getting repetitive. I mean what are we going to do, watch these men battle for 70 straight minutes? You need to break up the monotony somehow.

Next, it’s really important to change the dynamic of the situation at least once in the script. Again, because the plot is so simple, it’s easy to get bored. So at some point, Ford turns the tables and gains the upper hand on Osterman. Ford is the hunter and Osterman is the hunted.

Finally, the ending has to be really satisfying in these flicks. Remember, you’re not giving us a whole lot to work with here. The plot is merely one man versus another. So you want to make the journey worth it. You want to reveal something at the end that makes us reevaluate everything we just watched. Indeed, there’s a specific reason Osterman is hunting Ford, and that reason comes out in the end. Is it a good reason? Well, it wasn’t bad. I mean it didn’t knock my socks off or anything but I thought it was strong. Regardless, I liked the attempt at the ending. The writer took a chance and came up with something unexpected and interesting.

I also thought the theme was strong here. We’re exploring the atrocities of war and how they affect the soldiers of that war, no matter what the time period. What happens to soldiers, people trained to kill, when they’re thrown back into a society that sees killing as the ultimate atrocity? It’s obviously going to fuck with your mind. And the ones who adapt without a hitch are probably the ones you need to worry about the most. I thought Shrapnel tackled that subject matter well.

Shrapnel isn’t a world-beater but it’s a solid script. I liked it much better than a similar script that got a ton of pub a couple of years ago titled “Villain.” Let’s hope that the Los Angeles Correctional Institution allows for some pre-production offices in its cells so McTiernan can set this thing up faster than a wiretap.

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

What I learned: World War 2 is the single most mined real-world event in the history of movies. Which is fine. It’s one of the most important events of our planet. But when you start making World War 2 movies about a guy and his piano…I think it’s time to admit that the well is dry. I didn’t mind the World War 2 connection in Shrapnel because it was more of a backdrop and not a piece of the present-day storyline. So I’ll just say this. If you’re going to explore World War 2 in your story, make sure you have a unique angle that’s never been used before. “Life is Beautiful” is a perfect example. A comedy set in World War 2? In a concentration camp no less? I still remember hearing that idea and thinking, “Man, I have to see that. I’ve never heard of a story like it before.” This goes back to the same principal I was harping on with Memento. Take a concept, a genre, an idea, and turn it on its head.
*

Genre: Action/Hesit/Comedy
Premise: (from IMDB) When a group of hard working guys find out they’ve fallen victim to a wealthy business man’s Ponzi scheme, they conspire to rob his high-rise residence.
About: While I’m not exactly sure what happened here, it appears that this script used to be about some guys ripping off Trump in Trump Tower. It has since changed considerably, focusing instead on ripping off a fictional “Bernie Madoff” type character. Tons of writers have taken this on, so clearly it’s had many iterations. Currently it’s shaping up to be Brett Ratner’s next film, starring Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy.
Writers: Adam Cooper & Bill Collage, revisions by Russell Gerwirtz, Rawson Thurber, Ted Griffin. Current Revisions by Leslie Dixon.
Details: 117 pages, revised draft Jan 28, 2010 (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

I’m not sure when Brett Ratner became the most hated director among movie geeks in America, but I guess that’s where we’re at. I know a lot of it has to do with Harry Knowles’ out-of-character vitriolic tirades against the man, but regardless of where it came from, I was always shocked by just how quickly the piling-on happened.

I don’t know if it’s Geek PC to say this but…I thought Rush Hour was funny. It’s a silly movie but it makes me laugh every time I watch it. Maybe the fact that Ratner started getting Hannibal prequels and comic book films without cutting his teeth in those genres rubbed a lot of geeks the wrong way.

Whatever the case, it’s probably good he’s getting back to his roots, directing action comedy. Or at least I think he’s directing action comedy. Now that I’ve read the script, I’m not sure if I’d call it a comedy. There’s nary a joke throughout the first 80 pages. Unless I’m just completely misreading the thing, there isn’t any attempt to be funny here. Which makes the script quite an enigma. It’s got Stiller and Murphy in the leads.  It’s set up to be funny.  But this is a drama through and through. 

Tower Heist follows Cole Howard (Stiller?), a stuffy building manager for an upscale Manhattan highrise. A typical occupant might have a few hundred million in his Swiss account, so everything around here has to be catered to that kind of clientele. Cole is the man who caters it, due to his inscrutable attention to detail. This is a man who hasn’t smiled since the 80s – all because this job is his life, and it’s a never-ending race in which every stride must be perfect. 

This was the first problem I had with the script. Cole is bo-ring. I mean, if I owned a billion dollar building, I’d hire him this second.  But to play a character in my film?  Don’t you need to have a personality to be a character?  Not in Cole’s case.  This man is as straight as an arrow, and about as interesting as one. 

Anyway, one of Cole’s occupants is Arthur Braniff, a cocky selfish Bernie Madoff knockoff who quivers in ecstasy at the thought of people waiting hand and feet over him. Braniff’s the richest man in the building, and when the big crash comes, he’s exposed as having run a Ponzi scheme. The judge decides not to put Braniff in jail however, but instead places him on house arrest, back in his building. I’m still trying to decide if this is clever or ridiculous but it turns out that all of the building’s workers (doormen, concierge, maids) had their entire life savings wrapped up in Braniff’s company. This, of course, means that the people waiting hand and foot over our villain are the same people’s lives he’s ruined.

I have to admit, that’s a pretty good setup, having the workers serving the man who ruined their lives. But the strange thing about this twist is that it’s never explored. I think there was one scene that dealt with this unique conflict, and that scene was actually a dramatic one (again, isn’t this a comedy?).

Anyway, at some point, Cole gets so fed up that this guy ruined everyone’s lives, that he scrapes together a band of building workers to steal the rumored 20 million dollars that Braniff is said to be hiding in his penthouse. This was another weird choice in the script. The big heist is built on money that the heisters aren’t even sure exists.  ?

The best part about Tower Heist is the final act, when they realize what it is they really have to steal, and I’m not going to spoil that here.  But I will say it’s the saving grace in a script that’s obviously spinning its wheels until it can get here. What I’m surprised the writers didn’t realize is that the story would’ve been a thousand times better if they would’ve announced this as the heist object from the get-go.  The object is so crazy, so ludicrous, so impossible to steal, that the suspense and expectation of how they were going to do it would’ve added the awesome quotient this story was so desperately lacking.  I mean isn’t the best thing about heist films the impossibility factor – going after something that can’t be gone after? Why would you hide that information from the audience until the last act?

Indeed this was just one of my problems with the script. The story itself takes forever to unravel. The writers decided that the first act break should be Braniff’s Ponzi scheme reveal, so we don’t get that until page 30. They then decide that the midpoint is when our characters should decide to pull off the heist, so that doesn’t come until page 60! Which means in pages 0-30 and 30-60, there’s absolutely nothing going on in the script. We’re just biding time until we hit these crucial story points.

In my opinion, Braniff’s Ponzi scheme should’ve been revealed inside the first 10 pages, and the decision to go through with the heist should’ve been the first act turn. I mean the plot of the movie is the heist, right?  And we should know our plot by page 30 at the latest, right?  Why do you want to invite people into a heist film (with “Heist” in the title) when nobody even decides to pull off a heist until an hour into the movie?? 

Now I admit if you do move that moment up, you run into some new problems, such as having 60 preparatory pages for the heist instead of a more manageable 30, but if you cut this down to 100 pages instead of 117, you knock off 17 pages right there. Add a couple of obstacles via subplots to complicate the heist and that can easily take us through the 50 pages of Act 2.

I think part of the problem here is that the writers put too much emphasis on the theme and not enough on  plot. The theme of “Rich vs. Poor” is definitely everywhere you look in Tower Heist, and in this day and age when the less fortunate have grown increasingly frustrated with the rich, it’s a theme that can resonate. But in the end it won’t matter if the story doesn’t move at a brisk clip or doesn’t have an interesting story to tell.

I know Leslie Dixon is a good writer. She wrote one of my favorite scripts of the year in The Dark Fields. So I don’t know how much of this is hers and how much is everybody else’s, but this feels like a victim of over-development. I have no inside information to back this up but it sounds like this used to be a silly comedy about some schlubs who decide to rip off Donald Trump.

Over time, people were clearly in the writers’ ears saying, “We need to make the robbers more sympathetic. We need to make them more likable.” And so reason upon reason upon reason was added for why it was okay for these building workers to rob Trump.  So it’s not enough to simply have our villain deceive our heroes. He has to literally steal everybody’s life savings in the entire building so we have no choice but to root for them.  I mean at one point, to gain even more sympathy from us, the doorman, who Braniff’s already went out of his way to rip off, tries to commit suicide!  If this script proves anything, it’s that you can clearly go overboard with trying to create sympathetic characters. 

Anyway, this is a January draft and not the draft that went out and grabbed the actors, so let’s hope they fixed the problems and make the movie the fun piece of entertainment it can be.

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

What I learned: I think a lot of people mix up the inciting incident with the first act turn, placing the inciting incident on page 30 and the first act turn on page 60. Remember, the inciting incident is where your hero’s world is thrown out of whack. In Shrek, it’s when Donkey shows up. In Star Wars it’s when the droids escape. This should happen early, preferably within the first 15 pages. The first act turn is then when your hero’s goal is established. So in Shrek, it’s when Shrek learns he has to go save the princess to get his swamp back. In Star Wars, it’s when Luke decides to help Obi-Wan deliver the plans to Alderran. This usually happens between pages 25-30. If you mistake these two events, pushing the first to the 30 page mark and the second to the midpoint, your script will crawl. Imagine Star Wars if the droids didn’t escape Princess Leia’s ship until page 30 and Luke and Obi-Wan didn’t go to Mos Eisley until page 60. Or Shrek if Donkey didn’t show up til page 30 and Shrek didn’t go after the princess until page 60?? You’d have these long 30 page chunks to fill up that are going to feel endless to your audience. And that’s cause you’ve spread things out too far! Even if you don’t believe in stupid screenwriting terms like “inciting incident” and “first act turn,” I’ll break it down for you in simpler terms: “Make the important things in your script happen sooner.” That’s all. Just make shit go down earlier than you think it has to because that’s what keeps your script moving.

 Man, to prove how ignorant I am about comic books, I have no idea what the difference is between Green Arrow, Green Hornet, and Green Lantern.  There was a time when I believed they were all the same character.  And I’m still not sure that they aren’t.  All I can tell you is that, of the three, this is apparently the only one not in active development, which is surprising, as almost everyone who’s read the script has told me it’s great.  As for the rest of the week, we have a Ben Stiller flick, a duel that dates back to Nazi days, and possibly the craziest freaking script I’ve read all year.  I’m not going to say it’s crazy good, but there are scenes in this script that you have never read before nor will you ever read again.  I can guarantee you that.  I’ll save that one for Friday.  Right now, here’s Roger with Green Lantern.  I mean Green Hornet.  I mean Green Arrow!  I think. Who’s on first?

About: Justin Marks is the scribe responsible for drafts of Voltron, Grayskull: The Masters of the Universe, Hack/Slash and was the writer working on 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea for Warner Bros. and director McG. He’s also written for videogames, contributing some levels to the Electronic Arts sequel to Army of Two, The 40th Day. He originally wrote Green Arrow: Escape from Super Max as a spec, an original idea he developed under the guidance of David S. Goyer and his wife, producer Jessika Goyer.

My only exposure to the Green Arrow is limited to the appearance of the character in Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and the CW’s Smallville. I’m more of a Marvel guy than a DC guy, and I am in no way familiar with the B and C-list villains of the DC Universe (although some are criminal analogues of super-powered characters in the Marvel U) who inhabit the prison of Green Arrow: Escape From Supermax.

If you’re a fanboy or girl, it’s hard not to be intrigued by the scribe, Justin Marks, who has penned the script adaptations for some major 80s cartoons and toy-lines. From Voltron to Grayskull: The Masters of the Universe, he’s the guy that got a lot of Internet buzz for being attached to such geek-friendly projects but was crucified by angry talk-backers when Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li was released (which contains an inscrutable performance by Chris Klein). But, in Hollywood, the reality of a writer’s job is different than the naivette that can characterize online screenwriting forums. You take an assignment, you turn in a draft, and then everything else is outta your hands. The movie in the can may not honor the vision that was on the page, and suddenly, on the film websites, you become that guy. 

The other day I posted my “favorite books” list and in the comments section a few people mentioned Tales From The Script as a must read. Hey, if you were laying down a challenge, why didn’t you just say so? Actually, I’ve heard about “Tales” from a handful of writers over the years and your ringing endorsement put me over the edge. I decided to delve in. And man I wish I would’ve found this earlier.

Basically what “Tales” is, is a series of interviews with 50 working screenwriters broken down into individual topics. So one chapter might be about breaking into the industry. Another chapter might be about the development process. Still another about the pitfalls to watch out for.  It’s just a bunch of insider stuff and the greatest thing about it is the sheer quantity of quality advice.  That’s because the writers giving it to you are top notch. You have titans like William Goldman and Frank Darabont. And you have proven superstars who demand million dollar paychecks like Ron Shelton and Shane Black.

Another feature I liked about the book were the interviews with the industry people who surround the writers.  So you have an agent discussing the ratio of scripts read per scripts sent to screen or a professional reader discussing the dos and don’ts of script presentation.  You have Greg Beal, the coordinator over at Nicholl, talking about what he tells the contest readers to look for. It’s just really comprehensive stuff.

There are a ton of great observations and a lot of sound advice, but here are some of my favorites. Adam Rifkin, a writer with over a dozen produced credits, says about the pursuit, “You’re a boxer. Your job is to get punched in the face and keep swingin. It’s easy for anybody to say, “I wrote five scripts. None of them sold. I gave it my best shot. I’m moving back to Chicago.” You can’t do that. If want a career in Hollywood, you can’t fail. You can quit, which most people do when they don’t achieve success as quickly as they’d like, but you can’t fail. There are as many opportunities as you can create for yourself. You can write a script a day, every day, for your whole life, if you’re that motivated.”

Andrew Marlowe, who’s writing the upcoming Nick Fury film opines about why scripts are sold, “They’re looking at you as an investment in their own career. They’re saying, “Okay, if I trust this guy with $80,000 – or $800,000 – is that an investment that’s gonna pay off for the studio, and pay off for me personally in my career?” All these people are worried about their jobs, and if they bet on the wrong horse too many times, they’re gonna get fired, and they’re not gonna know how to feed their families and pay their rent. I met a lot of writers early on in my career who seemed to have this entitled attitude of “I’m talented. Why don’t they invest $80,000 in this story about my grandmother’s trip to Russia?” Well, maybe they didn’t think that was the best investment.

Or Mark D. Rosenthal: “I always get in trouble when I say this: I believe there is no great screenplay that hasn’t at least been optioned. I believe there is no great screenplay that doesn’t get the writer into the business. Most screenplays are mediocre or just okay. Really great writing always, always gets noticed in Hollywood. When I hear someone say, “It’s who you know,” or “I couldn’t get it to the right agent,” that is the consolation of failure. When it really works, it might not get made, because you need a Jupiter effect of a perfect director and perfect actor – but if the writing is great, you always get into the game.”

You even get Shane Black reeling about “likable” heroes. “Movie stars are gonna give you your best ideas, because they’re the opposite of development people. Development people are always saying, “How can the character be more likable?” Meanwhile, the actor’s saying, “I don’t want to be likable.” You know, they give you crazy things like, “I wanna eat spaghetti with my hands.” Crazy’s great. Anything but this sort of likable guy that everyone at the studio insists they should play.”

The book is a particularly nice alternative for writers who hate screenwriting books, cause this isn’t about some formula or some method. It’s real writers giving you real-life advice. That’s it. Thanks for recommending it to me guys. What should my next one be?

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

Edit: As someone pointed out to me, the book inspired a Tales From The Script documentary as well.
*