Whenever I mention titles, I see a little dance going on in the comments section. It’s an exciting topic these titles, probably because they’re the most elusive element in screenwriting.

Ruminating about what makes a good title gets my anxiety pumping. Do I even know the answer to what makes a good title?

Or are good titles the thing you only know when you see them?

“Jaws.”

That’s a good title. I don’t know why. But I saw it and I felt something and I liked the way it looked on the page so, yeah, boom, I like that title.

Is this method scientific? Most certainly not. But therein lies the complexity of titling.

I also wondered if titles only work when they’re placed next to the logline or poster. Can they work by themselves?

Are loglines worthless unless we know the genre? So many questions.

But I got news. I have all sorts of titles from all the showdowns I’ve run. So let’s lay out 30 random titles from those submissions and use them as the starting point for a conversation about what makes a good title.

Here we go…

Noah’s Choice
The Best and Brightest
Quiet Storm
Triggered
Bloodlet
Sweepers
Demon Motel
Go Find Her
Hit Squad
Proselytes
A Theory of Wolves
Pariah
An Old Friend
Witness Protection
Oh, Hi Mark
Live Fire
20,000 Leagues Into the Sky
Violence Is the Way
Here Comes Santa Claus
Trephination Falls
Sugar Green
The Glen Meadows Reclamation Project
Our Dead Lives
Youngbloods
Things That Glitter
All American Boy
The Stationary Department
The Pot Washer
Avulsion
Devil In A World of Hurt
Variant
Slide to Survival
The Fourth Husband
The Last Fairy Tale
10 Things I Hate About Demons

I’ll be honest. Quite a few of these, if I’m just looking at the title, make me curious. Some more than others but it’s interesting when you strip everything else away what you find. There’s so little information that your mind is forced to fill in a lot of blanks. For that reason, titles without context will work as Rorschach tests to most. You see what you want to see.

“Avulsion” has a strong intensity to it. “Variant” has a mysterious quality that makes me want to know more. “Pariah” is not only mysterious but also hints at a compelling main character. I think you’re seeing a trend here. One-word titles create mystery. And for certain types of genres, mystery is good. You just have to make sure that word is powerful and memorable. It can’t be something like, “iPhone” or “Sheets.”

Some titles that clearly *didn’t* work for me begin with, “The Pot Washer.” Think of the image that puts in the reader’s head. Someone washing pots. Is there any way someone could interpret that as a compelling story? I don’t think so. So find another title.

“Slide to Survival.” The words don’t gel. A slide is something fun. Survival means “save yourself or you die.” Combining them feels like combining peanut butter and mustard.

“Live Fire” is straight-up generic. It doesn’t put any image in my head that even remotely resembles a movie. Which is what you need these titles to do. They can’t just be a combo of words that you like. They must have purpose. That purpose is to convey an image of a movie people would want to see. This does not do that.

“Here Comes Santa Claus” doesn’t have any creativity to it. You’re just taking part of the chorus of a well-known song and repeating it. Good writers find a spin on the title to make it its own.

At first glance, “10 Things I Hate About Demons” is kind of fun. But something’s missing. It took me a second to realize what it was. The ending of a “10 Things I Hate” title works best when the things hated are the opposite of what you’d expect. So if my title was, “10 Things I Hate About Killers,” you’d scratch your head and say, “I already know killers are bad. Why am I coming to you to remind me of that?” But if I titled my script, “10 Things I Hate About Puppy Dogs,” now you’re a little bit curious, as puppy dogs aren’t hated.

Are there any titles here that, if I saw them and nothing else, I would open the script and check out the first page? Maybe, “Violence Is the Way.” The title is a contradiction. So I have to read the script to figure out why we’re doing the opposite of what is right. Irony in a title is one of the few ways you can make a title work all on its own. Comps include True Lies, The Neverending Story, Dead Man Walking, and Wargames.

There’s something about Sugar Green that I like but I can’t put my finger on it. That’s the thing with titles. They can be personal in the way they affect each individual. Sugar isn’t green. So, that right there has me curious. But also it feels like the title of some indie movie I’d want to know more about.

What are some other lessons we can glean from this exercise?

In order to answer that, let’s take a look at 30 more titles. The difference is, these are titles from movies that have actually been made. Now, just because a movie got made does not make a title “better.” In fact, studios are notorious for getting cold feet on risky titles and replacing them with something boilerplate. Still, I expect these movie titles to be better than what we saw with the amateurs.

It Ends With Us
If
The Wild Robot
Longlegs
Migration
Civil War
The Beekeeper
Anyone But You
Challengers
Argylle
Madame Webb
Trap
Speak No Evil
Night Swim
The Boys In The Boat
The Forge
Imaginary
Abigail
Monkey Man
Arthur The King
Poor Things
Blink Twice
The Bikeriders
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
Fly Me To The Moon
Unsung Hero
American Fiction
The Iron Claw
The Watchers
Tarot

Of these, several caught my eye right away. “Blink Twice” was at the top of my list. Which is funny because I have no interest in seeing the movie. But the phrase indicates that someone is in trouble (“Blink twice if you’re in danger”) and that can be all you need to get someone to open your script.

“The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” is an eye-catcher. Typically, the longer the title, the more dangerous. That’s because long titles can start to feel like run-on sentences. Also, the word choice has to be just right. For example, if I wrote a script titled, “The Dogwalker Sleeping In Albuquerque Has Designs On Running The World,” is that a good title? No. It’s a mish-mash of words that have no meaning.

Meanwhile, look at how many short titles we have here in the produced list. 21 of the 30 titles are 2 words or less. That’s the one title tip I’m sure you should take away from today. Go short with your title. UNLESS you have the greatest idea for a long title in history.

“The Iron Claw” is a strong title simply because it’s a strong image. “Civil War” is probably the only title where I would definitely request the script, even if I didn’t know anything else about it. Others agree. A lot of people who never go to indie movies went to this one SPECIFICALLY because of its title. It’s a title that promises conflict at the highest level.

That’s a good lesson: If you can imply conflict in your title, you are likely to get some interest. We see this with one of the earlier titles on the list, “Anyone But You.”

As for bad titles? “Argylle” is the worst title on the list. It tells us nothing. Is it a surprise, then, that nobody saw it? “If” is weak. I guess sometimes a title can be too short. The Forge is weak. The Bikeriders may be the most bland title on the planet. What does that title tell you about the movie? That people are going to ride motorcycles? That lack of specificity is exactly why myself and millions of other potential moviegoers never saw this thing.

Outside of that, most of the titles are solid.

What have we learned today? Not much! Well, a few things. 1) Make your title short. 2) Create irony if possible. 3) Imply conflict if possible.

You guys are always so vocal about titles. I can’t wait to hear your opinions on this.

There is still time left to grab an October Script Consultation Deal!  $100 off the full price + another $50 off if you have a horror or thriller script.  Also, while I don’t yet have a title consultation option (maybe I should – 99 cents per title consult?), I still have a great logline consultation.  Just $25 for me to evaluate your logline.  If you’re interested in the feature deal or any of my consults, e-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com!

The deadline for January Logline Showdown is THIS THURSDAY at 10pm! So if you have a logline you want to enter, follow this link and it will give you instructions on how to submit. This is the first Logline Showdown of the year so it’s a big one. Best five loglines will be posted Friday for the weekend competition.

Genre: Horror
Premise: A dysfunctional family’s weekend is interrupted when a strange man shows up at their door claiming to know the wife from many years ago.
About: Christopher Landon is one of the biggest horror directors in town. He was unfortunately part of that Scream 7 disaster where the entire movie imploded within seven days (lead actress getting canceled, the industry’s hottest young actress, Jenna Ortega, not counting Sydney Sweeney, also dropping out). Maybe there’s a movie idea there. A horror movie is a week away from shooting and the actors start getting killed one by one. Somebody write it. Anyway, Landon quickly moved onto this project which is none other than a… SHORT STORY! So, once again, we’ve got a big short story sale. If you’ve got Amazon Prime, you can read “Big Bad” for free over on their site.
Writer: Chandler Baker
Details: 62 pages

Yes, I know this is a site about screenplays thank you very much. But how can you expect me to ignore the hottest trend in story sales: SHORT STORIES. I just go where the money is, baby. And, as I’ve mentioned before, short stories aren’t that different than screenplays. In fact, today’s story is probably the same number of words as a 90 page screenplay. You’re just telling the story in a more descriptive medium.

Also, it’s been a long time since we’ve had a great werewolf movie. There was that one awesome werewolf script from last year. But I’m still looking for a werewolf movie that gave me the same feels as when I first saw The Lost Boys. Can Big Bad give me that oh-so-good feeling I’ve been waiting for? Time to bust out the dog treats and find out!

Sam and Rachel are the unhappy parents of girls Odie and June. The family lives in Eugene, Oregon and, right from the start, we sense this is a majorly dysfunctional crew. Rachel is a renowned academic with a good professorial job but her job is the only thing good in her life.

Sam was also once a renowned academic – that’s how they met – but these days he’s more of a recluse who writes in spits and spurts. We’re not sure why yet. But after switching POVs from Rachel to Sam, we learn that Sam despises something deep within his wife, something that, it appears, has infected their marriage since the beginning.

The town is dealing with a recent problem – landslides from the nearby mountains have taken down some of the town’s infrastructure. This has brought more animals into the area. And the predators have followed. The main predators that everyone is worried about are wolves.

A sick Rachel comes home from work and immediately starts arguing with Sam. The daughters watch. Sam sends them to bed. Then Sam takes Rachel downstairs into the basement. He comes back up without her. But before Sam can go to bed, there’s a knock on the door. It’s some guy claiming to be an old friend of Rachel’s. He wants to see her. Sam tells the guy to beat it but it takes a while to send him away.

Sam senses something is off, heads downstairs, and that’s when we realize Rachel is a werewolf. This is where she’s chained down when she turns. But the chains have been shed and there’s no sign of Rachel. This is VERY BAD NEWS. Sam hurries upstairs, ushers the girls into the attic, and goes down to find Rachel.

Instead, he finds the man from earlier, who reveals his true purpose for being here. He’s a werewolf hunter. And he’s not leaving until Rachel is dead. Heck, Sam can even help him if he wants. A scuffle ensues and Sam is able to kill the man. But that still leaves one x-factor floating around: Werewolf Rachel. Will he have to kill his wife? And is that something he’s wanted to do all along?

I don’t know what I was expecting here. But I definitely wasn’t expecting something this dark. This story is f&%$ing dark dude. DARK. Right from the start, these two don’t like each other. It’s not a casual dislike. It’s a deep dislike. So you’re trying to figure out why that is.

Baker, who’s a really good writer, baits you with a few misdirects, making you think Sam is the werewolf. So when it turns out to be Rachel, we’re surprised. As he’s gradually revealing all the toys in the story, he’s keeping you primed with this mysterious stranger who keeps showing up wanting to know where Rachel is.

Even the scenes that have the potential to be boring, like when the girls are stuck up in the attic, contain entertainment value. They start looking through old pictures kept in boxes and find out they had a brother. Where is that brother now? It doesn’t take long to add 2 + 2. I told you. This story is DARK.

I must reiterate how valuable it is when the writer can stay ahead of the reader. It’s even better when the reader THINKS he’s ahead of the writer only to be proven wrong. Which is what happens here. I thought I knew how this was going to end. I was wrong. And it really solidified the writer’s commitment to writing a TRUTHFUL DARK tale. He was never going to “Hollywood” this up. Maybe Landon and the studio change that in the movie but they shouldn’t. The ending is perfect.

Strangely, you know what this story reminded me of? Anatomy of a Fall. For those who haven’t seen it, the story is built around this marriage that completely fell apart. Crumbled on every level because the husband and wife hated each other. This is the werewolf version of that movie.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Landon saw Anatomy of the Fall, was then pitched this book by coincidence, and he realized that he could capture that same dysfunction and collapse of a family, in the form of a werewolf movie.

For those still struggling to come up with their own short story, one of the ways to write these is the way Big Bad was written, which is create ONE BIG SCENE. The family is at the house. The wife is turning into a werewolf so she needs to be tied up. A mysterious dude shows up at their door. There’s your scene. Have fun. And that’s exactly what Baker does. She milks every crevice out of that scenario. I would go so far as to say nobody could’ve written it better.

Also, a big reason why this worked – and this is something you can do a lot more in short stories than you can in scripts – is it gave the reader more detail about the world and more detail about the past. You can go into how Rachel and Sam met. How they were once happy. The specifics by which they were happy (meeting at school – were both hotshot academics). And really detail how they got to this point.

But it’s not just providing the facts. It’s providing the facts in the most dramatically advantageous way possible. Give us a little bit here, but not enough to form the entire picture. Just enough to make us curious and to get us to start forming that picture in our head. Then wait until 4 pages later to give us a little more information.

For example, we show the kids looking through the pictures. Then we see some little boy with dad. Who’s this boy? Don’t give us the answer yet. Cut back to Sam looking for Rachel. Four pages later, show the girls discussing this boy, trying to figure who he is. Only then do we start realizing – this was their brother and Rachel killed him. THAT’S why their marriage is so bad. It’s pretty hard to be happy when mommy murdered your son.

Another thing that stood out in the writing was that everybody was DOING SOMETHING when the story began. Bad writers start their characters’ lives as soon as they write “FADE IN.” Good writers know exactly what those characters have been doing for the past year, for the past month, for the past week, yesterday. (This is why I had you guys doing all that pre-script character work this week!!!)

That may not seem important. But when you read this story, you learn exactly why it *is* important. Since Baker knew exactly what was going on in Rachel and Sam’s lives, she could place them in situations where they’re DOING THINGS when we meet them. Things that matter. It makes SUCH A DIFFERENCE.

Someone needs to change the cover of this book. Cause this cover makes this look like it’s going to be a YA book. But this is one of the darkest stories I’ve read in a year. Wow.

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

What I learned: Usually when I write these “What I Learneds,” I’m regurgitating things I already know. They’re important things – things that help screenwriters. But I’m no longer always learning something new from a script. This story was different. I genuinely learned something. Create a disturbance at the beginning of your story. A town that is going about its daily business is boring. A town that is cleaning up after a devastating landslide – that’s more interesting. It gives your location and your story an immediate energy cause everybody’s reacting to what just happened. I’m definitely filing this one away. Create a recent disturbance to your story’s location to start your story off with an extra spark of energy.

Genre: Thriller
Premise: A man wakes up on his wedding day with a text that simply says, “Run,” and what follows is 8 straight hours of people trying to kill him.
About: Another HUGE short story sale. This one sold to Universal. Sam Hargrave (Extraction) will be directing. This is writer Aaron Jayh’s second sale of the year. The other went to Amazon for a project called The Dwelling about a man who discovers that a house is buried in his backyard.
Writer: Aaron Jayh
Details: 45 pages

I know you want me to start right in on these Black List scripts but I want to introduce a revolutionary new practice the rest of the world is aware of you but you, apparently, are not. It’s called PATIENCE. We’ll get to the Black List scripts in the new year. We have a ton going on in these last couple of weeks so I gotta squeeze it all in. Starting with the newest form of spec scripts in Hollywood – short stories!

Our nameless hero, a good guy who runs a non-profit, wakes up on his wedding day with a text that says, “Run.” Our hero ignores it but then gets another text. If you don’t run, you die. The next thing he sees is a giant man breaking into his house. Yeah, our hero thinks, maybe running is a good idea.

He evades the man and grabs an Uber, getting a call from his future wife, Sara, in the meantime. He’s told by the mystery texter to not let on that anything is wrong to Sara. Which would be fine if a car didn’t come out of nowhere and sideswipe his Uber! And now people with guns are getting out and trying to kill him.

Somehow, our hero gets away. He’s guided to a store by the texter where he’ll be able to buy a gun. He’ll need to shoot the man who plans to kill him in five minutes. Huh?? This is not how he planned to spend his wedding day.

Despite numerous attempts by our hero to get the texter to tell him who he is, the texter will not oblige. Just get through the day and get married, the texter says, and we’re all good. That’s the important thing.

Along the way, we learn that the wife-to-be has a father who absolutely HATES our hero. He runs this giant tech corporation and works on top secret projects and needs his daughter to run the company when he retires. But she’s instead wasting her time at our hero’s non-profit, marrying the loser who works there (our hero).

If you’re a savvy reader, you’re starting to put the dots together. This father must have something to do with the attempts on our hero’s life, right? However, when our hero confronts him, the father is convincingly confused. He has no idea what the hero is talking about. Our hero then spends the last three hours trying to figure out what’s going and, more importantly, getting to his wedding alive. Does he get there? And if he does get to the finish line, will he finally find out who was trying to stop him?

Will Poulter for our runner?

The most shocking thing about this sale is that IT ISN’T A SCRIPT EVEN THOUGH IT COULD’VE BEEN. This is, roughly, the same amount of words as a screenplay. This is written in a high-octane, eyes-flying-down-the-page fashion, just like a screenplay. Why, then, did the writer choose to write it as a short story?

Isn’t it obvious? Cause short stories are selling bigger than specs right now. Which doesn’t even make sense if you think about it. It used to be that the short story sold because it was a shorter time investment on the reader’s end. But today’s short story is going to take you just as long to read as a screenplay. So now I think it’s just in the marketplace consciousness that this is where they’re finding material. If you don’t have a buzzy short story as part of your portfolio, now is the time to consider one.

Okay, I’m going to upset some Die Hard fans here but I need to bring this up in order to explain why I struggled with Run For Your Life. Remember Die Hard 3? The one with Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson? I remember going to that movie and being let down. Not in “this was a bad movie” way. More in a, “I wanted a better Die Hard movie” way.

I wouldn’t realize until many years later, when I got into screenwriting, why that movie underwhelmed so much. I learned it was because it made its protagonists passive. Even worse, it made the coolest action hero in the world, John McClane, passive. McClane just went where he was told. That’s not John McClane and that’s not the setup you want for an action movie.

An action movie needs an ACTIVE protagonist. I mean, the words – action, active – are practically the same, right? It wouldn’t be for another several years before the entire puzzle came together. I learned that that Die Hard 3 script wasn’t originally a Die Hard script! It was some other random script called “Simon Says” the studio had already purchased and they just changed all the names to make it a Die Hard movie in order to move into production quicker. It proved to be an early nail in the franchise’s coffin, as the franchise never recovered after that.

Lesson? Don’t make your action hero passive.

Yet that’s exactly what they do here in Run for Your Life. The hero is not making any decisions on his own. Like John McClane, he’s going wherever people tell him to. The story is still entertaining because it’s action packed and it has this mystery component and ticking time bomb. But those things only provide so much cover for the passive protagonist.

This is a long-winded way of me saying I’m not a huge fan of these “follow-my-orders” narratives. They turn your hero into an errand-runner, which, of course, can be overcome with clever writing but, as I always say, writing is hard. Theoretically, any large script issue can be overcome. But it probably won’t be because it’s really freaking hard to write a good story without having to overcome large script issues, much less with them.

That’s not to say Jayh doesn’t give it his best shot. The best thing the script has going for it is its central mystery and I did want to find out who the heck it was who was calling (spoilers follow). I figured it had to be the hero, probably from the future. As soon as we started talking about the father-in-law being this giant CEO tech guy, I figured that made the most sense.

(Major spoiler followed). So there was something really sweet about it being Sara instead. It wasn’t what I was expecting and it wrapped up this backseat theme the story had been promoting all along of: “love conquers all.” This was a woman who was doing everything in her power to save the love of her life and her marriage. It worked!

Maybe too light and airy to become a movie. Echoes of “Ghosted” were ringing in my ears. But it’s still a fun read.

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

What I learned: The nice thing about writing a short story over a script is that you can get directly inside the hero’s head. This gives us a much better idea of how the hero is feeling and coping during the story, which makes for a different experience. The hardest thing about screenwriting is you can’t do this unless you do voice over, which many find clunky. Your job, as a screenwriter, is to show how your hero is feeling THROUGH ACTION. For example, in a novel, if you wanted to convey that the hero was angry after getting duped by a work friend, you might have him say to himself, “I can’t believe Joe betrayed me.” In a script, you’d show him hurling his phone across the room. In other words, you’d use ACTION to convey what the hero was feeling.

Genre: Romantic Comedy
Premise: Maggie finds herself the target of her sister’s wedding-thirsty bridesmaids after unintentionally catching the bouquet, messing up the bride-to-be queue.
About: This script finished in second place in this month’s Logline Showdown. We have a new Logline Showdown every month. The deadline for the next one is Thursday, June 22nd, 10pm Pacific Time. If you want to participate, send me your title, genre, and logline. The script *does* have to be written as the winner will get a review. You can send all entries to carsonreeves3@gmail.com
Writer: Kevin Revie
Details: 88 pages

The Hailster for Maggie?

Okay, so we had a snafu behind the scenes this week. Adam, who won with his script, The Dinosaur War, had been submitting the script to Logline Showdown for a while. At one point, he was submitting it as a feature. And this time, he was submitting it as a pilot.

Except I didn’t list it as a pilot. I listed it as a feature. Since everybody voted on it as a feature, both Adam and I decided that it shouldn’t be featured this week, which means the second place script, Petal to the Metal, is stepping up to the plate for this week’s review.

I’m actually excited about this script. I’m in the mood for something light and fun. And we don’t review a lot of romantic comedies around here. So I’m curious what Kevin has in store for us.

27 year-old Maggie isn’t the wedding type. So she’s far from thrilled that she has to go to her sister, Sierra’s, wedding. And she’s even less thrilled when she inadvertently catches the flower bouquet, anointing her as the next single lady to put a ring on it.

Not long after this happens, Sierra’s wolf-like bridesmaids, Evie, Zara, and Kira, get dumped by their long-term boyfriends. They immediately believe that some sort of curse has occurred because Maggie caught that bouquet.

So they conspire with Sierra to find a man for Maggie. The sooner they can marry her off, the quicker they can get back in line for their own marriages. They go to dating sites, find some dudes, and send the dudes off to pretend-bump-into Maggie and work their charms on her.

There’s only one problem. Maggie’s gay! She doesn’t want any sausage with her eggs. And when she finds out that the men are only coming on to her because of the evil bridesmaids, she does a reverse prank where she pretends to get engaged to one of the men, only to then throw it in the girls’ faces with a big fat “PUNK’D!”

After the fallout from the punking, Zara confronts Maggie, wondering why she can’t just get married so the rest of them can get married… BUT THEN KISSES MAGGIE!!! Maggie’s down with it and she and Zara engage in some extracurricular activities. But afterwards, Zara is unsure if she wants to make their new love public. The uncertainty of their relationship pushes us towards the big climax where Zara will either go public with her feelings or take the more traditional route in life.

Man, this was a wild one.

I don’t know what I was expecting, exactly. But it is definitely not what I got. I’m still trying to figure out if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

I guess we should start with the main character, since that was the topic of yesterday’s article. I liked Maggie. She’s the one getting pushed around in this story. So there’s a natural inclination to root for her.

But I wasn’t sure if Maggie was the main character after the first act. I don’t know if she’s the main character after reading the whole script!

Let’s start with that first act, though.

We don’t meet Maggie right away. We only hear her voice as she narrates her sister’s life. We never see Maggie’s own everyday life, the section of the script that best shows the reader who your hero is. And then, even after the big “catching of the bouquet” moment, we shift our focus to these other girls – Evie, Zara, and Kira.

They then control the second act. They are the active characters. It is their goal – to find a man for Maggie and accelerate the courting – that drives the story.

If the first act barely focuses on Maggie and the beginning of the second act is driven by three characters besides Maggie… then who’s the main character here? Does this movie have a main character? Or is it meant to be an ensemble?

I still don’t know the answer to these questions.

Then, when you throw this sidewinder of a twist at us – that Maggie is gay – we’re really unsure what’s going on. After that reveal, the original concept disappears. We are in a completely different movie than the one we started with.

Then you have Zara revealing that she’s gay too! And that she likes Maggie! Which was an interesting way to go but it wasn’t set up at all. There was no official setup that Zara was gay or interested in Maggie. So when Zara plants a smackaroo on Maggie, it feels random.

Not to mention, Maggie comes out of that kiss looking bad. All we’ve seen so far is Zara be horrible to Maggie. And the second she kisses Maggie, Maggie’s down with it??? How bout showing a spine? Telling her to f-off for being such a terrible person to her. Rewarding awfulness does not endear us to your hero. Assuming Maggie is the hero!!

I was trying to think of a comparable movie that had this structure. It started off as one thing and became something else. The 40 Year Old Virgin comes to mind. That started off as a straight comedy with this guy trying to get laid for the first time. Then it shifted into a rom-com with him in a relationship.

But I’m not convinced this plot was as smoothly executed as that one. That plot felt planned. This plot felt like things were being thought up on the fly. That’s usually the case when a script deviates heavily from the original concept because the writer runs out of plot for that storyline and has to come up with something else to keep the keys depressing.

Then we’ve got this logline issue. The logline to Petal to the Metal is misleading. I think I would’ve enjoyed it more if I knew what was coming. So something like: “When a closeted 20-something unintentionally catches the bouquet at her sister’s wedding, she screws up the bride-to-be queue, resulting in the furious wedding-thirsty bridesmaids taking control of her dating life in an attempt to get her married ASAP. “

I know, it’s long. I would revise it a few times before sending it anywhere. But at least it represents what the script is. Readers can get pretty upset when the script is different from the logline.

Overall, I thought this script was okay. It’s too messy to get a ‘worth the read’ though. And I would’ve preferred to read the script I was promised. But it has its moments. It had a few lines I genuinely laughed out loud at, like this one: “I talked to an AI chatbot yesterday while drinking a sangria alone. That’s not okay.”

Now that you know the actual story, you can go in better prepared than I did, which will probably mean you’ll enjoy the script more.

Script link: Petal to the Metal

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

What I learned: Economy of words. Economy of words is SO IMPORTANT in comedy because comedy scripts must be easy to read. There were occasional lines in Petal to the Metal that violated the ‘economy of words’ law, like this one: “The bouquet, notably rose-less and stem-wrapped with ample precaution, comes HURDLING toward Maggie.” Why not just, “The bouquet comes hurdling toward Maggie?”

Or, on the dialogue end, we get lines like this:“Well, this is confusingly unnerving.” Why not just, “Well, this is unnerving?”

There will always be times when you’re more verbose. But, for the most part, screenwriting is about economy of words, saying as much as possible in the smallest package possible.

Genre: Drama
Premise: (from Black List) Peter, a seventeen-year-old painter, lives with his controlling mother in a lonely house in the wilderness. When he meets a mysterious stranger, he begins to question the reality he was raised to believe, gathers the courage to leave his mother, and unveils the sinister truth behind his upbringing.
About: This script finished with 8 votes on last year’s Black List. The writer has written several short films, which makes this script their big breakthrough.
Writer: Yumiko Fuiwara
Details: 85 pages

Millie Bobby Brown for our gender neutral mystery forest figure?

We’re going from one of the biggest blockbusters of all time to a script you might see Kogonada direct for A24. That’s why I love Scriptshadow, baby. You never know what you’re going to get!

17 year old painter Peter Mori has lived his entire life with his mother, Felicia, out in the middle of the forest. All Peter does every day is paint. And he’s really good at it, even if his paintings are excessively disturbing. Peter focuses on death and fear and evil in his paintings, with a particular love for fire.

Every few weeks, a 70 year old man named Mark shows up to the cabin and collects Peter’s paintings. Mark appears to be some rich dignified aristocrat of sorts. Which is impressive when you consider that society is no more. At least that’s what we’re told.

Things are starting to change for Peter, though. He’s going to be 18 soon, and the implication is that he will make his way into society once he’s a man. This has injected a healthy dose of curiosity in Peter, most of which is aimed towards a big metal door in their home that Peter is not allowed into. Talk about a mystery box.

In addition to this, Peter meets a strange character out in the forest one day. This is the description of the character in the script: “A TEENAGER – about Peter’s age. Gender-neutral. Skinny, a few inches taller than Peter. They wear an oversized hoodie, black jeans and leather boots. They have wild, curly hair that ends just below their ears, and falls over their large, searching eyes.”

Our gender-neutral “teen person” tells Peter that the real world isn’t nearly as bad as his mother has told him. And that Peter should come with “them” and find out for himself. Peter hems and haws over the course of a few meetings with this mystery figure, but finally agrees to run off with them.

A day before Peter plans on sneaking off, he can’t help but be drawn to the steel door that has stood between him and the mystery room his whole life. So he goes inside when his mom is out and finds out the shocking truth about his mother, and by association, him. (Major spoiler) It turns out Peter’s mom was a famous artist in the real world and that Peter’s entire life has been an art exhibit of hers, which she plans to show the world on his 18th birthday. Naturally, Peter decides to get the f$#k out of there. But will the real world be any better than his mother’s fake world?

It’s important to remember that not everything can be ideal screenplay or movie subject matter.

There are certain genres that fit perfectly into each. An action movie, like James Bond, is perfect for film. It celebrates everything the medium is good at. A lean thriller, a la Taken, is perfect for spec screenwriting. The narrative moves quickly and the writing is always sparse and, therefore, easy to read.

But we still need other stories or else the audience gets bored. And today’s script is definitely “other.” I’ve read plenty of scripts about people living in isolated areas. Even scripts about parents lying to their kids’ in these scenarios, keeping the truth of the real world from them.

But I’ve never seen one that evolves like this. And I’m still trying to wrap my head around the big reveal. Cause in scripts like this, where the entire story is screaming, “JUST WAIT UNTIL THE END! EVERYTHING WILL BE REVEALED AT THE END! THE BIG END IS COMING AND IT’S GOING TO BE A DOOZY! JUST YOU WAIT AND SEE WHAT THAT ENDING REVEAL IS!” – the reader will not accept anything other than a perfect reveal.

An argument can be made that everything that needs to be set up in this story could’ve been done so in the first 10 pages. Then the next 60 pages are the story spinning its wheels, getting you all charged for the final reveal, and we get that reveal with 15 pages to go.

While I give the writer credit for a reveal I’ve never seen before, I’m not convinced its worth a 70 page tease. The script is a prime example of a “waiting around” narrative. For those who don’t know what this is, it’s when the characters don’t have a clear goal and are therefore passive. We’re essentially “waiting around” for things to happen *to* our hero as opposed to the hero going out and *making* things happen for himself.

These scripts are not impossible to make work. But they are definitely challenging. And if you’re someone who doesn’t understand the unique challenges of a waiting around narrative, it’s unlikely you’ll pull them off. Because even writers who understand the unique challenges of this template have a hard time making them work.

With that said, mystery is a primary interest-driver in these stories. And the writer does a good job setting up several mysteries. Who is our gender-neutral forest dweller? What’s behind the magical steel door? What is Mark doing with these paintings Peter paints? And just what’s going on in the outside world in general?

Those were just enough mysteries to keep me interested in finding out what happened. I wouldn’t say I was invested, though. And this is one of the issues you run into whenever you write a story with so many mysteries. It’s hard to delve into any character development because every character is a lie. You can’t tell us what’s really going on with them.

We do know, however, that they’re taking advantage of Peter. And that makes him sympathetic enough for you to care what happens to him (readers will always root for characters who are being taken advantage of).

The problem was that you just never had enough gears pushing the narrative along. And so the story felt like a car with only a couple of gears. That led to characters sitting around and being forced to say things that didn’t do much for the story. “Thing is, when I paint I can exist somewhere else… Like, outside of space, and maybe outside of time, even. I’m not here… I’m in a different realm.” This is essentially gobbledy-gook. You don’t want artist characters giving detailed thoughts about their process. It’s never as interesting as the art itself. Just show it through the art. And you don’t want characters offering up unprompted thoughts as a rule of thumb. It comes off as pretentious 99% of the time.

The Fire Outside reminded me of many of the Black List scripts you read today. You can see some talent on the page. But it’s too raw. There’s not enough technique to keep the story compelling from beginning to end.

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

What I learned: I’ve pointed this out before. But never have somebody physically push another character down, then have the fallen character bump their head, and either pass out or die. That doesn’t happen in real life. So it shouldn’t happen in the movies.

What I learned 2:

When writing monologues, or any dialogue really, don’t underline a bunch of words for emphasis. First off, it looks like you’re trying to direct the actor’s performances, which actors hate. But it also conveys that you don’t have confidence in what your character is saying. If you have to underline a bunch of words to REALLY EMPHASIZE those moments, it means the dialogue isn’t doing the job on its own. I don’t mind emphasizing a word once every 25 pages or so. Assuming you really need that emphasis to make your point. But don’t don’t do it multiple times in a monologue. Your monologue should speak for itself. And the truth is, it’s highly unlikely those words needed to be emphasized.