I know this is a weird post, but I’m making a call out to all you Scriptshadow readers to answer a question I’m dying to know.  Last night I was watching Risky Business and realizing what a great movie it was.  Not only is the screenplay incredibly tight but the directing is unique and inventive and captivating – there’s clearly a vision here.  The movie made Tom Cruise a star and yet the director ended up making like 3 more movies, none of which were very memorable, and then disappearing off the face of the earth.  It’s so odd.  Outside of a post on Hollywood Elsewhere, there’s no information on Brickman whatsoever.  Do any of you know what happened to this guy?  I’m dying to find out something – anything.

Genre: Horror/Sci-Fi
Premise: Jurassic Park meets Michael Bay via Jerry Bruckheimer. A team of scientists study what could be Noah’s Ark, trapped underneath a mountain of ice. But this is not the same ark we’ve been told about in stories.
About: The 2005 sci-fi script “The Ark” is what got Holly Brix her agent. This later led to her selling her first spec, “Mile Zero,” about a young woman who takes a job on an Alaskan oil rig so she can prove her father’s innocence in a series of murders (to star Milla Jovavich). Finally, last year, Brix got her first produced credit with “The Butterfly Effect 3: Revelations.” Lucky for us, she’s made her first script available through the WGA website which I link to at the end of the review.
Writer: Holly Brix
Details: 125 pages – undated (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Hooray! A script all of you can participate in. We haven’t had much action oriented sci-fi stuff on the site lately, so I decided to change that. The Ark is one of those big idea scripts, the kind that Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin get all hot and bothered over. Something a younger Spielberg might have made. And make no mistake, The Ark has its influences steeped in Jurassic Park. The big question with these “big idea” scripts is always, does the execution live up to the idea? The answer is almost always no because a big idea only requires you to write 2 great lines. A script requires you to write 5000 great lines. Naturally, the odds aren’t in your favor. But hey, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it, right? Let’s hope Brix is one of the few who pulled it off.

Abby Archer, that rare breed of knockout archeologist you only find in movies, is approached by a man explaining to her that they’ve “found it.” Whatever “it” is, Abby seems to understand what he’s talking about, but doubts that it’s true. “It” is obviously something very rare.

Complicating matters is that Jeff, her ex-husband, is also being summoned to the “it” party. That’s good news for us readers (conflict!) but bad news for Abby. While it all seems like a lot of hassle for what will likely be nothing, in the end Abby agrees to participate because the scientific ramifications are just too large.

So it’s off to Iceland where Abby and an entire team are greeted by Allister Eckmann, a 56 year old Richard Branson times 20. Eckmann believes he’s found the Ark. Yes, the Ark as in that boat with all the animals on it. Well great, Abby says, let’s get the hell down there and check it out.

So they head down under stories and stories of ice and are shocked to see what doesn’t look like a boat at all. This looks more like a…giant space ship. Abby takes the group inside and they immediately come upon some frozen animals, but not like any animals you and I know. More like animal hybrids. Dog-bears and Emu-vultures. That kind of thing.

What this means, they beleive, is that Noah’s Ark is a ship that originated from another planet, and came here to populate the earth. Nobody’s quite sure why the ship then would be down here, with all the animals seemingly still entombed, but since they’re all scientists, they’re eager as hell to find out.

Unfortunately, while taking a stroll through the stadium sized ship, it TURNS ON, and all these animals start thawing out. These animals weren’t frozen after all. They were in cryogenic sleep! And since half of them seem to be the really nasty hunting type, our characters realize they’re playing the part of eggs and bacon in these animals’ breakfast.

As is the norm in these movies, people start splitting up, and each group is hunted down by a set of nasty monsters. One group takes on a rhino…thing. Another takes on a room full of cougars, and no, not that kind of cougar (though I’m not sure which would be worse). And others still take on some kind of Yeti beast.

There’s a big storm that prevents them from getting up to the surface. There’s a bad guy who’s got his own motives for the Ark. And there’s plenty of hypotheses about what planet the ship is from and why it came to earth. But in the end, it’s just about getting the fuck off this thing alive.

So, does The Ark work? I’m afraid to say “not really.” It’s certainly a fun idea but the treatment of that idea is too simple and too obvious. If you’re a fan of these kinds of movies, you’re not going to find anything new here, and while that certainly isn’t required for these films to work, the lack of surprises leads to us being way ahead of the story, which is never a good thing.

One of the overlooked things in these genre, believe it or not, is character development. Outside of Abby’s past relationship with Jeff, there’s nothing linking any of these people together – no history, no secrets, no conflict, no problems. In other words, there’s no drama to get wrapped up in, and as a result, we lose interest in the characters.

Look at a movie like Pitch Black. Look at all the tension and secrets and history and conflict going on between the characters in that movie. Riddick and Johns have a past. Riddick is the only one who can save them, but is also the one who can hurt them the most. So half the people want to let him free and the other half don’t. This causes a divide between the group. Certain characters are building trust with other characters, some of them lying, some not, so that there’s this intricate web of drama and deceit going on underneath the story. This way, when all the exterior stuff happens (they’re attacked), the character moments become a lot more interesting. Is a person who hates another person going to save them or let them die? You need that kind of stuff to make these stories work and there just wasn’t any of that going on here. Even the stuff with Abby and Jeff gets forgotten, which leaves almost zero conflict to play with.

The stuff that happened topside with Eckmann and our bad guy, Joe, was kind of interesting. But it felt completely detached from the rest of the story, since the two plots had little to do with each other, so it was tough getting into it.  Plus, if you’re going to have a bad guy, you want him to be a part of the party, right in the mix of everything, not safely upstairs in another subplot.  Imagine if Burke was still up on the main ship in Aliens. 

To be honest, I would’ve preferred they got rid of the topside plot altogether. Some of the stuff there was hard to buy anyway (Eckmann went down and set up cameras all over the ship ahead of time so he could watch the scientists expressions when they looked around). I think one of the reasons The Thing worked so well was that they were all alone, no way to call for help, stranded. I think this would’ve been more scary if our characters were experiencing that same kind of uncertainty.

This script actually feels more like a first draft, where the writer is getting the basic ideas down, with plans to flesh everything out later. If that’s the case, I think it has potential. Mutated animals hunting down humans is definitely movie material. But right now, too many aspects are only half-realized.

Script link: http://www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/theark.pdf (This link is for the WGA’s server, where you can download the screenplay)

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

What I learned: Use a lingering mystery in your first act to take us through boring character introductions. In some scripts, you have to set up a lot of characters. This can be really boring for a reader to trudge through, but here’s a trick to make it more bearable. Set up a mystery ahead of time. In The Ark, we’ve been told that he’s found “it.” What’s “It?” We’re not sure but from everyone’s excitement, we sure as hell want to find out. For that reason, while we meet 8 characters in a row, the pages fly by, because we’re excited to find out what it is they’re all talking about. If you ONLY introduce 8 characters in a row, you’re probably going to put us to sleep.

Hey guys.  As a lot of you know, I’m a big fan of The Tracking Board website.  For those not aware of what a tracking board is, it’s a site that tracks spec scripts as well as writing assignments in the industry and lets you know how those scripts are faring.  Which ones find that elusive sale, where that sale comes from, which ideas fall by the wayside, what big writer just landed the new Pirates rewrite, etc., etc.  The site is invaluable for writers to keep a gauge on what ideas are selling, what ideas aren’t, and it’s a great way to make sure someone hasn’t already written that masterpiece you were preparing to spend the next two years of your life on.

The site also keeps you updated on job openings (i.e. a personal assistant job for a producer, assistant at an agency), new project attachments, TV pilot happenings, festival info, private screenings, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

I know they have a holiday deal of 15% going on, but for Scriptshadow readers, I managed to get it down another 10% so the normal price of $59/yr is down to $44.25!  The deal is going on through January 10 so sign up if you’re not signed up already.  Happy holidays!

Genre: Biopic/Drama/Fantasy
Premise: The life story of one of the most creative minds of all time, Walt Disney.
About: For one of my favorite books about Disney, check out Disney War – a backroom expose of Michael Eisner’s tenure at the company. Some nice juicy stuff. — Every Friday, I review a script from the readers of the site. If you’re interested in submitting your script for an Amateur Review, send it in PDF form, along with your title, genre, logline, and why I should read your script to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Keep in mind your script will be posted.
Writer: Brendan Lee
Details: 117 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Brendan has dutifully sent me his Amateur Review script entry every month since I began the feature and I can safely say there is no one who’s more passionate about his material than Brendan is about telling this story. I e-mailed him a couple of times and reminded him that I’m not the biggest biopic fan and therefore his script already had an uphill battle with me, but he maintained that that was okay. He just wanted the script to get read and hopefully make it better.

Brendan is also aware that writing a biopic about Walt Disney is a no-win proposition. He doesn’t have the rights to Walt Disney’s story, and if anyone wants to tell Walt’s story, it’s likely they’ll buy up some other more renowned material – not a script from a struggling writer trying to find a crack in the Hollywood wall he can slip through. However, that’s the exact same thing they said about The Muppet Man, which was purchased by Jim Henson’s company. So why can’t lightning strike twice?

Funny I should bring up Muppet Man, because there were a few times I was reminded of that script during my reading of the Imagineer. But I’ll get to that later. For now, let’s take a look at Walt Disney’s life.

We meet Walt at 5 years old back in 1906 Missouri. While the rest of his brothers and one sister have a more conservative outlook on life, Walt is more interested in the bizarre, in the strange, in the eclectic, and we see this obsession emerge when he stumbles into a carnival in the middle of the woods one evening. The colors, the atmosphere, the wonder – it’s that defining moment in a life where you immediately know your calling.

Unfortunately, Walt’s strict father, Elias, is the exact opposite of Walt. He’s a hardworking blue collar man who believes that the way to a living is getting your hands dirty, and not with pencil lead or finger paints. This strained relationship will end up haunting Walt for the rest of his life.

Despite this strain, Walt becomes a pretty good little artist and through the years manages to eek out a living selling drawings until he gets a job at an advertising house called Gray Advertising. Around this time, Walt’s more business-oriented brother, Roy, comes back into town and the two decide to form a business together. They move to Hollywood where they segue into making movies and Walt starts working on an animated film that will later become one of the most famous movies of all time, “Alice In Wonderland.” (it will also, unfortunately, lead to the monstrosity that was Tim Burton’s version of the material last year – something I’m positive Walt wouldn’t have approved of!!).

Finally, Walt’s dreams are beginning to come true, though not without conflict. Walt’s obsession with thinking outside the box and always trying to create the next spectacle nearly puts he and Roy out of business several times. Cause as anyone who’s worked with visionaries before can tell you, spectacle doesn’t come cheap. But Walt’s genius always seems to bail them out, and when Universal tries to rip them off over a movie deal, Walt has had enough and tells his brother they’re opening their own studio.

But while Walt’s businesses continue to thrive, he is still haunted by his father’s lack of approval, an approval he will never receive since his father dies before they can reconcile his career choice. Of course we all know that Walt went on to even bigger things, creating one of the most iconic brands on the planet, Disney World, but we’re left to wonder if that was ever enough for a man who just wanted his father to say, “Good job.”

Okay, before I get started on the critique, let’s recap why I have such a hard time with biopics. The main problem is that they don’t usually have a goal for the main character. Instead, the movie becomes a retelling of their lives, which can definitely be dramatized, but the lack of structure prevents that dramatization from ever firing on all cylinders.

For this reason, it’s hard to critique biopics because all you’re really critiquing are the events that make up a person’s life. You’re essentially saying either this man’s life is interesting or it isn’t.

So from this screenplay, did I find Walt Disney’s life interesting? Not really. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy The Imagineer. But Walt Disney’s life, at least the way I interpreted it, wasn’t that difficult in comparison to the lives of other less fortunate people who went on to have great success. Outside of some humble beginnings, the obstacles that stood in his path – getting rejected by a lot of newspapers, not having enough money to do what he really wanted – were frustrating but by no means cataclysmic.

Even though I didn’t like 2005’s “Ray,” you got the sense that being blind, African-American in a racist world and growing up with diddly-squat, that that man had to overcome some impossible obstacles to find success. Or “The Aviator,” about Howard Hughes. That man had to overcome obsessive OCD and even survived a trio of plane crashes to get to his success. You really felt like that was a life worth writing about.

That may be The Imagineer’s (or more specifically, Walt Disney’s) biggest hurdle in telling his story. Is his story interesting enough? I’m not sure it is.

Still, I have to admit that there’s something about The Imagineer that pulls you in. Brendan’s passion for the subject definitely bleeds onto the page and this is one of the zippiest biopics I’ve ever had – a welcome change from a genre that usually gets bogged down in overindulgence .

There are two moments in particular that stuck out to me. First, there’s a wonderful scene towards the end where Walt finds closure speaking to an apparition of his dead father. These scenes are so incredibly tricky to write because it’s easy for them to devolve into melodrama. But Brendan really nails it, and it’s impossible not to get choked up listening to this last conversation.

The other moment has to do with the final scene (SPOILERS) where Walt Disney is talking to his creation, Mickey Mouse, before he takes that final train off into the next world. There’s something so sad and touching about it that you can’t help but get wrapped up in the emotion. If it wasn’t for that moment, I’m not sure I ever would’ve felt Walt Disney as a real person. But that last scene really changed that.

Of course, this leads to a problem, one that a number of you are probably already thinking – Isn’t that last scene similar to The Muppet Man? Well, yes, it is similar to The Muppet Man. And that’s unfortunate, because I know Brendan’s been working on this forever and it’s likely he wrote this scene long before he even heard of The Muppet Man. But there’s no doubt that reading it reminds you of that screenplay, and that, unfortunately, is going to result in some people seeing it as unoriginal.

In the end, I think I’m going to recommend this. There’s something unexpectedly sad and unique about a man dying who’s brought so much happiness to others, because you feel like a lot of that happiness is dying with him. You’re going to get choked up here and just the fact that the writer is able to make you feel something about this man’s passing tells me he succeeded on some level.

An interesting script for sure. I’d like to hear what biopic lovers have to say about it. Go ahead and download it below.

Script link: The Imagineer  

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

What I learned: If you’re going to write about someone’s life, make sure that life was complicated, interesting and had plenty of adversity to draw upon. Because you can’t lean on a traditional storytelling arc (the 3 act structure) and are more a slave to real life events, you want to make sure those events are as interesting as possible.

Note: Disqus seems to be having a meltdown (one of their many).  If you can’t comment, try again later.  

When you read a ton of scripts, patterns start emerging. Little things occur here and there – red flags if you will – that indicate you’re dealing with an amateur. This article is not meant to attack these mistakes, but rather highlight them so that anyone writing a script can try and avoid them. I never give up on a script if I encounter a couple of these red flags, but when they start piling up, especially early on, I know I’m in for a long read. Here are ten common things that tell me I’m dealing with an amateur, and therefore ten things you should avoid!

MISSPELLINGS/MIS-USED WORDS (ESPECIALLY IN THE FIRST 10 PAGES) – Of the hundreds of scripts I’ve read with rampant misspellings, there have been maybe two that turned out to be good. The thing is, misspellings and misused words speak to a larger issue — that the writer isn’t putting enough effort into his/her script. All it takes is sending your script off to a friend for a spell check, or combing through the script religiously yourself, to fix the problem. People who don’t put a lot of effort into spelling most likely aren’t putting a lot of effort into bigger issues like plot construction, character development and rewriting. Keep in mind, professionals take a lot of pride in their work. When they finish a script, they want to present it to you in the best light possible, so they make sure everything is perfect. Therefore when everything *isn’t* perfect, it’s natural for a reader to assume they’re not dealing with a pro.

BLOCKY CHUNKS OF TEXT – I get that some scripts are going to require more description than others, but when I’m repeatedly seeing blocks of text 5-6 lines long (or longer) I know I’m dealing with an amateur. Blocks of text need to be lean in order for your script to be easy to read. Pros know this. They know that taxing the reader’s eyes is going to result in a less enjoyable reading experience. So they keep descriptions lean, and when they do have to go into detail, they break those chunks up into multiple paragraphs so they’re easier to digest. Some genres get a little more leeway in this department. For example, I’m okay with paragraphs *occasionally* getting 5-6 lines deep in a period piece. But if I’m reading a comedy, you better have a damn good reason to go over 3 lines consistently.

NO CHARACTER DESCRIPTION – This one kills me, however I acknowledge that some pros are guilty of this as well, so it’s not always a guarantee that you’re dealing with an amateur. Here’s how I look at it. Your characters are your everything. They’re the lifeblood of your movie. If we don’t know what they look like, how are we supposed to connect with them? Here’s a description for you: “Gene, 40, takes in the world behind a pair of steely gray eyes. He always looks at you for a little too long, as if he’s sizing you up for some later experiment.” Here’s another: “Gene, 40, short and stocky.” Try and convince me that the reader doesn’t get more out of the first description. Obviously, you’re going to give shorter descriptions for less important players, but an attempt should always be made to bring characters to life when they’re first described.

TOO MANY CHARACTERS – Amateur writers love introducing new characters. 20-30 characters counts are normal to them. Pro writers not only understand that too many characters become hard for a reader to remember, but that by combining characters and/or focusing on less characters, it allows them to develop those characters more, therefore making them more interesting. Keep your character count down. Only introduce characters if they’re absolutely necessary to the story.

TOO MUCH “MOVIE LOGIC” – When I’m reading a script, one of the things that separates the pros from the amateurs is how they treat logic. In professional scripts, whether it be fantasy or drama or comedy, things always happen for a reason, and that reason makes sense. In amateur scripts, choices are made more because the writer *wants* them to happen. They don’t really care if they make sense or not, as long as they solve the immediate story problem. For example, is your female lead agreeing to go out with your male lead because he’s done something to impress her, or is she simply going out with him because you need them to get together? Is your babysitter going to check out that noise in the dark dangerous basement because it makes sense or because you need to kill her off? Why is your hero, who you’ve established as afraid to fly, flying his date off to Vegas for the weekend? This may seem obvious, but I read so many scripts where characters do illogical things because the writer isn’t putting themselves in the character’s position and asking if they’d really do those things or not.

SHIFTING TONE/GENRES – One second your script is a crime caper. The next it’s a romantic comedy. Once we hit the second act, it’s a thriller! I’ve actually spoken to writers about this. Sometimes, they’re not aware of it. But other times they try and tell me that they don’t want to make a “Hollywood movie,” and are instead trying to create something original, different, and cutting edge. Well, okay, you can do that. But unless you understand intricately the genres that you’re working in and have a logical and original plan as to how to jump back and forth between genres, your script is not going to come off as profound. It’s going to come off as hackneyed. There’s only one Quentin Tarantino.

PREDICTABLE – I excavated this out of some notes that I gave because I think it’s the perfect way to describe this issue. You don’t want your plot to be too predictable! Readers being able to predict every plot turn is death for a writer. It means you’re not doing your job, which is to tell a story that we’ve never quite seen told this way before. You want to use our assumptions against us. You want to think, “Okay, they think we’re going to do *this*, so instead we’re going to do *this*.” This is a great way to think while writing in general, because it challenges you to go against the obvious choice, a surefire way to make your screenplay more original.

MELODRAMATIC – New writers aren’t yet aware how much is enough when it comes to evoking emotion, and usually way overdo it as a result. Someone dies. A couple of scenes later someone gets cancer. A couple of scenes later there’s a car crash and someone goes to the hospital. It feels to the writer like they’re creating captivating drama, but the overindulgence of it all actually creates the opposite effect, making it feel ridiculous and unrealistic. Pick and choose your spots where your script gets heavy. And don’t cram too many intense dramatic moments together.

BORING ON-THE-NOSE DIALOGUE – This is probably the biggest clue that you’re dealing with an amateur. The dialogue is really straightforward and boring. Characters say exactly what they mean: “You make me so angry!’ Characters get way more specific than people in real life would: “I’m going to head over to get a cheeseburger at Portillo’s and then call my mom.” (instead of “I need a chili dog before my stomach starts eating itself.”) There’s no nuance or slang. People talk like robots. There’s no subtext or conflict. Characters aren’t hiding anything from one another (which always makes for interesting dialogue). You need to understand all of these things in order to get that dialogue to pro level.

And there you go. Those are the things that scream “amateur” to me, but if you’re a fan of this site, then you’ve read your share of screenplays as well. What are the things that clue *you* in that you’re reading an amateur as opposed to a pro?