It’s been many moons since I’ve last been enamored by a script. Or a movie, for that matter. It’s led me to question what the issue is. Is it everybody else?  Do people simply not know how to write anymore? Or is it me? Have my standards become too high?

I’ll tell you what I’m scared of. I’m scared of becoming that Scriptshadow commenter who hates every movie. If I can no longer enjoy the movies I watch or the screenplays I read, then there’s no incentive for me to continue doing this. I’m not interested in having a website that craps on everybody.  I want to spread LOVE!  Not be a hater-potater.

And yet Hollywood is doing everything in its power to lure me into a hate cocoon. I commend the Marvel marketing team for their Herculean effort to convince people that The Marvels is actually good. I’m assuming they sent Chris Hemsworth out to spend a day with every critic who gave this film a fresh score on Rotten Tomatotes.  But come on, Marvel has known for a year that they’re dealing the cinematic equivlanet of fentynal.  It’s insulting to sell us that this movie is actually watchable.

Then we get this new Ghostbusters trailer.  What is going on here??  It’s a movie about an ice villain???  Did they accidentally swap with one of Marvel’s scripts?  We’ll find out a year from now when Marvel releases Ghost Thor: Who Ya Gonna Call.

I haven’t even enjoyed the Star Wars offerings.  You know what’s sad (or awesome, depending on your point of view0?  One of the ways I wind down is watching Youtube videos of people watching the original Star Wars for the first time.  It’s so addictive seeing them experience this wondorous perfect movie for the first time ever.  And every time, without fail, they always get excited at the right moments.  They laugh in all the right places.  In a way, it’s like I’m watching Star Wars for the first time as well.

But these days, the serious Star Wars TV shows (Andor) don’t work for me.  The silly ones (Ahsoka) don’t work for me. That Madalorian episode with Lizzo and Jack Black very well may have heisted my soul and sold it on ebay for Yoda earings.

I haven’t even been able to enjoy the Oscar-hopefuls – Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon, Barbie – which are supposed to be the projects that actually put time and effort into their screenplays.

So I think about this question a lot. Are my standards for screenwriting so high, at this point, that they can no longer be met? I’m biased but I don’t think they are. Still, several things have happened in the industry that have really hurt screenwriting in the past decade.

One of the issues is we don’t have that central screenwriting teacher anymore. In the 80s and 90s, it was Syd Field. In the 2000s, it was Blake Snyder. But once the internet popped up, writers stopped reading complete books on how to write screenplays and, instead, piecemealed their screenwriting education together through online screenwriting articles. So they know certain things  (add conflict to your dialogue!) yet are totally clueless to others (how to build a compelling second act).

In addition to this, feature screenwriting moved away from singular protagonists trying to achieve a goal – the purest form of storytelling – to the “Marvel Ensemble” model where the writer is juggling 10 different protagonists and their subsequent storylines. Which isn’t normal! That’s not a typical story anyone would tell.

Then you have the rise of golden era television, with 1000 shows on TV, so that’s where all the writers went. And what does television promote? The never-ending story. There is no climax, which teaches screenwriters terrible habits. Cause if you don’t have to end your story, you never have to think about where your characters are going. And when those writers dip their toes back in the feature space, they bring that issue with them. Their narratives seem flighty and aimless because that’s the only kind of story they’ve had to write!

In other words, NOBODY KNOWS THE BASICS ANYMORE. They’re just making sh*t up as they go along. Yesterday’s script, which barely BARELY got a “worth the read,” is a good example. The theme of the script is messiness. The messier the better. That’s not good screenwriting. Good screenwriting requires focus and structure and planning.

So what I thought I’d do as we head into the weekend is remind writers of the basics. It’s not that hard. It really isn’t. But if you’ve never learned these things, then you’re probably writing a lot of weak-sauce material.

1 – Give us a likable character. Introduce your character in a way where we like him or her. Or, at the very least, sympathize with them. For example, if a woman’s husband of 20 years just blindsided her with divorce papers, we will sympathize with her. The reason this is so important is because nothing you do after your protagonist’s introduction will matter if we’re not rooting for them.

2 – Create a problem. A story cannot start until there’s a problem. This is the thing that jolts our protagonist into action. Think about it. If there’s nothing that forces your character to do anything, then they won’t do anything! You don’t have a movie if your main character isn’t doing anything. In one of my favorite movies from recent years, Parasite, the “problem” is very simple. The family is broke. They have no money. They need a solution.

3 – The problem introduces the goal. Once you introduce a problem into your hero’s life, you’ve created the all important GOAL. Cause now your hero has to SOLVE THE PROBLEM. And needing to solve a problem is a goal. To use Parasite as an example again, the goal is to take over the rich family’s home.

4 – The goal gives you your stakes. The reason the goal is so important is because it needs to power you through your second act. If the goal is minor or flimsy, it won’t be able to achieve this. This is where STAKES come in. We have to feel like everything is on the line for your hero. If you succeed, you get everything. If you fail, you lose everything. In other words, the bigger the problem, the more impressive the goal, which means higher stakes, which means you have more power to drive the second act. And just to remind you, NONE OF THIS MATTERS IF WE DON’T LIKE YOUR HERO. Which is why getting number 1 right is so important.

5 – Throw obstacles in front of the goal – A goal, in and of itself, is boring. Where the excitement happens is when that goal is challenged. So you want to think of your second act as the “Goal-Challenging Section.” You want to throw a bunch of things at the hero so it’s hard for them to achieve the goal. The harder it is, the more we’ll enjoy ourselves. Cause think about it: how exciting is it to watch someone try to achieve their goal with only minor pushback? To use Parasite as an example again, the midpoint has this crazy psycho dude secretly living in the basement. Talk about a challenge. How do you take over a house when you have this other guy already living there?

6 – A challenged goal makes your hero stronger – The bonus of challenging your hero in their pursuit of a goal is that it BUILDS CHARACTER every time they overcome one of these challenges. And each time that happens, assuming you got the number 1 rule right, we will like your character even more. Cause we like people who take on obstacles and overcome them. You know your second act is working when our love for your protagonist is growing.

7 – Endings aren’t as hard as you think – A good ending is less about some inventive never-before-seen plot twist and more about your hero facing their flaw head on and overcoming it. The endings that stick with us have some sort of emotional catharsis. Again, you got to get number one right or NOTHING YOU DO in the third act will matter. But, if we like your hero, and we’ve seen them struggle throughout the second act, and they overcome their flaw in the climax (Rocky overcomes his self-doubt to go the distance in the championship match), that goosebump-laced rush will shoot through the reader. Always try and think of your climax as an emotional catharsis and not as the final piece to a plot puzzle.

These tips don’t cover everything, obviously. You still have to surprise us, make interesting creative choices, write good dialogue, have a couple of stand-out characters besides your hero. You’d also like to execute your story with a unique voice or a fresh angle in order to stand out from the pack. But if you follow the above seven tips, it’s really hard NOT to write a good screenplay.

As for whether I’m still capable of being impressed anymore, I already have 10 movies that are going to make my Best Movies of 2023 list. I already have 10 scripts that are going to make my Best Scripts of 2023 list. That’s 20 stories right there. Should I really be asking for more than that in one year? I don’t think so. That’s plenty. I guess I was hoping for more stuff to blow me away this year. But maybe that’ll come in 2024.

I offer feature screenplay and pilot script consultations – the best notes in the business.  If you mention this article, I will give you a $150 discount. Your script doesn’t have to be ready yet to secure the discount.  You can send it in at a later date.  Just e-mail me at Carsonreeves1@gmail.com.  Can’t wait to read your script!

What a weekend!

If there’s anything I learned, it’s that not even the best logline consultant in Hollywood can compete with a brain-trust of 100+ screenwriters. You guys killed it. I personally liked Katie’s…

A repressed war widow awakens naked in the snow on a military black site and must outwit her ruthless father’s vengeful soldiers when she realizes the carnivorous feline they are hunting is her.

And DG Burton’s best…

A repressed young widow awakens naked in the snow on a military black site and discovers soldiers have been torn apart, she has no memories of last night, and she’s being hunted by the Marines’ most ruthless general – her father.

Now if you could just come up with a logline to erase daylights savings time, I would pay all the money in the world to see that movie succeed! You certainly did better than the movies at this weekend’s box office. This was supposed to be the big Dune 2 opening weekend but the film, like many others, got pushed back because of the actors strike.

It’s so hard to promote a big movie when your stars can’t get out there and make headlines for you. I enjoy the backup plan – sending directors and writers out there – because literally everything they say is more interesting than what actors say. But you can’t deny the fact that, without actors to remind us that their movies are opening, the movies don’t seem as big.

Speaking of someone who’s a writer, director, AND an actor, Sly Stallone has been in the news a lot, with his docu-series premiering on Netflix. What’s interesting about Sly is that he should be one of the richest people in Hollywood. And yet the rumor is, he’s out of money. That’s why he agreed to this docu-series. It’s why he has that Kardashian like show about his family on Paramount Plus. The guy is hustling.

Most of this stems from the fact that he doesn’t own a single sliver of the Rocky franchise. You can’t really fault him for that. He notoriously stood strong when he made that Rocky deal, insisting that he be the star. Which, if he didn’t do, there’s a good chance we wouldn’t know who Sylvester Stallone was today. But he mistakenly didn’t obtain any of the rights to the film, which means he hasn’t gotten paid a single dime outside of his acting fee from the billion dollar franchise.

Still, the dude has 75+ IMDB credits. How are you struggling to pay your bills?? Seems like there’s some serious money mismanagement there.

The reason I wanted to bring up Stallone is that he recently revealed that his first draft of Rocky had a different kind of Rocky. Rocky was a brute. Rocky was a tough guy. Rocky beat you up and didn’t feel bad about it. It wasn’t until a lady friend of his read the script and cried to him that she hated Rocky because of how mean he was, that Stallone decided to change the character into the more lovable iconic character we know today.

His very first change, which was actually suggested by the friend, was that instead of beating up the guy who couldn’t pay his loan, he let him go. The guy even offers Rocky his coat to help pay but Rocky lets him keep it. From there, Stallone just paid more attention to how Rocky acted. He wanted him to be sweeter instead of meaner. As a result, an iconic character was created.

I wanted to highlight this because there’s this erroneous belief that you win “screenwriting street cred” by creating an unlikable character. But in this case, it is literally the thing that would’ve sent this movie down a path where we never would’ve heard of it, versus what it became, which is a billion dollar franchise.

And when we talk about likability, it doesn’t have to be like in Adam Sandler movies where the ten-cent screenwriters he uses have his character save 20 lives before he’s even reached the inciting incident to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE you love him. With Rocky, he’s just an understated nice guy who cares about people. He’s not over the top about it. That’s just who he is.

Remember that going forward. You don’t need to have your character save the world for us to like him. He can just be nice! It’s not complicated.

Shifting focus from the movie world over to the TV world, I stumbled upon the latest trailer for a Marvel TV show. It’s a show called, “Echo.” Before I get into my thoughts on the trailer, I know one of the writers on Echo (who’s an AWESOME writer by the way – one of my favorite unknown writers out there). I am not blaming him or any other writer who gets hired to write a Marvel show. I would cash that same check in a heartbeat.

My problem is more with the state of TV in general. Cause when I saw this trailer, I didn’t feel anything. There’s a woman. She had a tough childhood. Now she’s some sort of fighter as an adult. There’s an intensity behind the presentation of her story and it looks totally fine. There’s nothing wrong with this show at all. But it doesn’t stand out in any way. It doesn’t MAKE ME WANT TO WATCH IT.

Echo is a symbol for where the TV industry is today. We’ve gotten to the point where it’s nearly impossible to stand out from the pack. If Marvel, which can afford to put 100 million dollars behind a show like this, can’t get anyone excited about watching it, where are we? We are in the most saturated TV market ever where every show feels the same in the sense that there’s nothing exceptional enough that you actually label it a must-watch.

This begs the question: How do you write a TV pilot in 2023 that stands out? Is it even possible?

As far as I can tell, there are several show-types that get interest. The most prominent are the IP shows that have passionate fan bases. I’m talking Wednesday on Netflix or The Last of Us on HBO. These are useless to aspiring screenwriters, though, because we don’t have access to those properties.

Then you have the high-concept stuff, like Squid Game, Yellow Jackets, or Stranger Things. These are super-expensive but, if you can come up with one, they’re great because they’re the only ideas that can compete with those IP properties. Unfortunately, their cost scares a lot of potential suitors away.

And, finally, you have the word-of-mouth shows, the shows that become hits because of how incredibly well-written they are. I’m talking about the White Lotuses, the Successions, and the Bears. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to strategize around writing one of the greatest shows ever. So it’s yet another arrow we can’t add to our quiver.

But there is one final category which, I believe, is the one that best gives an aspiring screenwriter a shot at writing a show that stands out. And I call it, “The Voice Show.” No, I’m not talking about spinning chairs and overly charming country singers and golden tickets. I’m talking about a show that demonstrates your unique voice. Some recent examples would be Fleabag, Euphoria, Atlanta, Severance, and Beef.

There’s something unmistakably unique when you read these pilots and it’s not as difficult to pull off as you may think. Having a distinctive voice boils down to identifying what it is about how you see the world that’s unique and leaning into that as aggressively as possible. If I’m a Korean-American man who suffers from anger issues, that’s a great starting point for leaning into my voice. Which is how “Beef” was conceived. That show is less about the story than it is about its creator. And how that creator, Lee Sung Jin, sees the world.

The second ingredient to writing one of these shows is to be weird. To be awkward. It’s fine to cover your everyday existence in these shows. You just can’t do it in an expected fashion. Every interaction Fleabag gets into in her show is awkward. There’s one point where she’s in a job interview and inadvertently propositions the interviewer, then is forced to backtrack. We’re all weirdos deep down. We have weird thoughts. We get in weird situations. LEAN INTO THAT WEIRD. That’s how you’re going to make your pages read different from everyone else’s.

The third ingredient to these shows is to take from your own life. You should be using your own life to power all of your writing, of course. But it’s especially important in this type of script because one of the easiest ways to stand out is to chronicle things that nobody else has seen before. And since your unique experiences contain a myriad of specific moments, you want to mine those moments as much as possible. In Fleabag, that heartbreaking Phoebe Waller-Bridge miscarriage dinner with her sister was, supposedly, based on real life with someone she knew.

The final ingredient to writing these shows is to be achingly truthful. When you’re writing big Hollywood movies, you’re often a slave to the plot. You have to have that big twist at the midpoint for example, so you dance around in your mind for a few days until you come up with that twist. You don’t do that here. You lean into the truth. If a character in the throes of drug addiction is confronted by her friends and family, you better have that drug-addicted character act truthfully. That approach led to one of the best episodes of Euphoria when Rue was confronted and she did what any addict would do in that moment. She RAN.

There has to be an element of rawness and realness on the page to truly stand out from the pack. And, unlike movies, which work better within the construct of sexy concepts, TV is more about character and, therefore, more conducive to this sort of writing. By the way, I’m not saying you can’t succeed by writing the next CSI or the next Stranger Things. All I’m saying is that if you want to write something that has the best chance at standing out from all the other scripts that these production houses and studios read? The Voice Script is the number one way to go.

Do you have one in you?

Today, we’re going to do something different. With loglines being such a hot topic on the site, I thought I’d take you through a recent logline consultation of mine so you can see the thought process I go through when I develop a logline.  This logline comes from a frequent contributor to the site, David Laurie, who came to me with his logline for, “She’s Got Claws.”

To give you some context, I have two logline consult options. The first is a basic option ($25) where I give you a single e-mail analysis of your logline, a 1-10 rating, as well as a logline rewrite.  These are great if you haven’t written the script yet and you just want to know if you’ve got a good movie/show idea.

David ordered the deluxe option ($50) which is mainly for writers who have already written their script  and need the best logline possible for querying purposes. The deluxe option gets you as many e-mails  as it takes until we get your logline right.

I’m including David’s consult because most of my clients get what they want after 4 or 5 e-mails. But David doesn’t mess around.  He gets into the nitty-gritty.  And, you know what?  I’m glad.  Because if we have to push it to the absolute limit to get a good logline, I’m willing to do it.

If you want a deluxe logline consultation, I’ll give you a $10 discount if you mention this post.  E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com. Okay, settle in and buckle up.  Let’s get to the consult!

**********
Original e-mail from David Laurie

I am struggling with She’s Got Claws’ logline.

Although the script is pretty damn tight IMO.

It’s a monster movie. Basically a werewolf movie but my spin delves wayyyy back into legend. The Nephilim are an enhanced superhuman/ubermensch race mentioned in the Bible. Some translations have them as part animal.

So in my prologue, DNA extracted from a young girl in wartorn Afghanistan, is used for a serum that brings out the animal closest to your true self via a werewolfy transformation.

In the case of meek, buttoned-up, no-make-up-no-hair-products war widow HOLLY, who’s been put-upon all her life, this creature is a powerful, majestic and extremely savage LIONESS.

She wakes on a snowy roof in a rundown Alaskan town, naked and bloody, with no memory of what happened. Surrounded by soldiers hunting a wild animal that escaped and has killed several men overnight.

Holly must evade the soldiers, seek clothes, refuge and help. She soon realises the animal they are hunting is her. And the General in charge of the hunt is her father. And the rundown town is an abandoned army facility, now a blacksite. Rumours of locals going missing have been piling up.

Holly has never changed before. It is new. She knows the answers lie in the blacksite. Obvs. She would prefer to run away but the Alaskan Spring Thaw has blocked all the roads out of town. And she can’t get over the idea that her own family is involved.

So it’s an empowerment story of a woman facing up to her family, who despite being human, are the real monsters (maaan).

There’s a budding romance in there amid lashings of dark humour and super gory violence.

Tonally I am going for An American Werewolf in London eats Memento

It is pretty funny but it’s NOT a comedy. It reads as a tense, urgent, psychological thriller. As per usual for me. Lots of running around, bullets and biting heads off. The dark gallows humour matches the life-or-death situations.

What is less usual for me is the plot is pretty simple. Woman is hunted. Escapes. But turns tables and seeks out the hunter. Doesn’t like what she finds. Gets mad. Gets even. Pulls a lot of heads off. Learns to live with it.

I started a little debate yesterday on the topic of WHAT IS SCARY?
with a side of Is SHE’S GOT CLAWS a HORROR movie?

I was knocked by your #1 rule of Horror. Three scary scenes. I wondered: are the set pieces scary enough?

I have since pumped them up.

But does that make it A Horror Movie? It’s a tense, violent jump-scare-tastic monster movie with a dark emotional undercurrent, so, after a crisis of faith, I have decided yes, of course it’s fucking Horror.

But my logline is not cutting it

So. I am currently at

On a desolate Alaskan military base, a timid war widow transforms into a savage lioness. Waking up as her old self, she must uncover who did this to her and why (and if it can be reversed) before it happens again.

previously….

A timid young war widow, who awakens naked on a snowy roof at dawn with soldiers shooting at her, has to figure out who she is and what the hell happened to her last night. Fast.

All help gratefully received

David

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Title: She’s Got Claws
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Logline: A timid young war widow, who awakens naked on a snowy roof at dawn with soldiers shooting at her, has to figure out who she is and what the hell happened to her last night. Fast.

Analysis: Okay, you know with me, I’m always trying to simplify your ideas. You tend to go very in-depth, which is good in theory, but I think you would benefit from simplifying things down.  Of your two loglines, the second one is better, as it creates a more urgent dramatic situation.  But I would love to get the father connection in there. As soon as I read that, it made the scenario sound a lot more interesting. I don’t love the adjective “war widow.”  Does that mean her soldier husband died?  Or does it mean she’s also a soldier herself? It’s more interesting if she was a soldier herself.  Either way, I would like to start the logline off, and the protag description off, a lot cleaner.  Which leaves something like this…

New Logline: A were-lion, who awakens naked on a remote military black site, learns that she slaughtered five people the previous night and she’s being hunted by her bloodthirsty military commander father.

**********
From: David Laurie

Hey

thanks for this

War widow = husband died in Afghanistan. I’m not crazy about the term either.

Here’s how the story rolls out.

It’s a mystery and Holly peels back the layers to find the simple ugly truth.

So the logline KINDA has to hold a lot back, which is why I based it around the set up.

The REVEALS shift Holly’s understanding of what went down, of her father/family but mostly of HERSELF.

She’s not a soldier. She’s not much of anything. No kids. No job. Which is her realisation.

When  her father, the General, shows up with Marines, she assumes he’s to blame for her transformation

Reveal #1 her husband PETER was not dead at all – but he is now – as of last night

Reveal #2 her soldier sister, IVY, is not in the Middle East, She’s been working on weaponizing the Afghan changeling DNA with Peter. Living on the black site – not one mile from Holly – for 2 years

reveal #3 The General had sponsored the program but Peter and ivy have gone wayyy off the reservation so he showed up to shut them down

reveal #4 last night Ivy kidnapped Holly and tortured her to force Peter to kill the General. Peter took the changeling DNA, went on the rampage and HE killed all the men in the night

reveal #5 Holly injected herself with the Changeling DNA to go after Peter and stop him killing her father.

reveal #6 Holly killer her own husband and no-one else

At least, until she woke up and the soldiers came after her

So, on awakening, the truth was: she had only killed one person and for a good/justifiable reason

Title: She’s Got Claws
Genre: Horror/Thriller

cool

Logline: A timid young war widow, who awakens naked on a snowy roof at dawn with soldiers shooting at her, has to figure out who she is and what the hell happened to her last night. Fast.

Analysis: Okay, you know with me, I’m always trying to simplify your ideas.

yep

You tend to go very in-depth, which is good in theory, but I think you would benefit from simplifying things down. 

deffo for the logline
I feeeeeel like it’s a simple story.
But it’s a false narrative
It starts on a number of wrong assumptions and clarifies/builds to a final reveal

Of your two loglines, the second one is better, as it creates a more urgent dramatic situation.

yep

But I would love to get the father conneciton in there.

yep

As soon as I read that, it made the scenario sound a lot more interesting.

yep
that’s the thing
Holly is boring
Her military family is all horrible, one way or another – she is the, um, white sheep of the family.
and the story is her drilling down into her fuckedup family

I don’t love the adjective “war widow.” 

same

Does that mean her soldier husband died? 

yep

Or does it mean she’s also a soldier herself? It’s more interesting if she was a soldier herself. 

I disagree
i think it’s more fun pitting the dowdy, dull civilian up against cops, Marines and mercenaries

only she has a secret advantage, being a “werewolf”
which she is not thrilled about

Either way, I would like to start the logline off, and the protag description off, a lot cleaner.  Which leaves something like this…

New Logline: 

A were-lion, who awakens

DO YOU THINK HUMAN AGAIN IS IMPLIED?
I WRESTLED WITH THIS

naked on a remote

GONNA  SWITCH remote FOR ALASKAN

military black site, learns that she slaughtered five people the previous night

SHE THINKS THIS IS THE CASE
BUT IT WILL TURN OUT NOT TO BE
BUT THINKING IT MAKES IT A BIT EASIER WHEN SHE KILLS TEN MORE

and she’s being hunted by her bloodthirsty

HE’S MORE TERRIFYING EMOTIONLESS HARDASS THAN BLOODTHIRSTY

military commander father. 

SO maybe
A were-lion, who awakens naked on an Alaskan black site, learns that she’s being hunted by her brutal military commander father, in connection with a string of corpses discovered last night. 

BUT
for me that feels like Holly has the upper hand, being a werewolf. So that’s not good

This is why I wanted to start with the meek/timid/dowdy shizzle

A timid woman, who awakens naked on an Alaskan black site, learns that she’s being hunted by her brutal military commander father, after fifteen men were slaughtered last night.

so does that imply werelion?

I get the clean THIS IS A WEREWOLF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT opening
but the reality is in pitching this story to any exec, there’s no way it’s not preceded by THIS IS MY SPIN ON A WEREWOLF STORY

also the anatag gets 4 words
and the protag only 2

A timid widow, who awakens naked on an Alaskan black site, finds she’s being hunted by her brutal military commander father, after fifteen men were slaughtered last night. 

THOUGHTS?

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Well, it comes down to: Do you want to tell the reader what the movie is about?  Or do you KIND OF want to tell them what it’s about, but build the logline more around mystery?  My experience is that it’s better to tell them what the movie is about.

**********
From: David Laurie

hi

Well, it comes down to: Do you want to tell the reader what the movie is about?  Or do you KIND OF want to tell them what it’s about, but build the logline more around mystery? 

that, as you can imagine, is 100% my instinct

the story is a mystery
but I feel there is plenty of (literal) meat on the bones at the outset

My experience is that it’s better to tell them what the movie is about. 

I know, I know and I suspect you are right. It will open the logline up to more people getting it

what about?
A timid young widow awakens naked on an Alaskan black site to find she’s being hunted by her military commander father, who thinks she’s the creature who slaughtered fifteen men last night. 

From: David Laurie

for me that last one builds nicely
but the implied question is
is she that creature
and
the answer, right off, is yeah, she probably is
and with a little thought, you get to she’ll probably be OK if she’s some kind of monster

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Everything and the kitchen sink version:

The reserved widow of a recently deceased soldier awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she is being hunted by her relentless officer father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen men last night. 

Edible version:

A startled woman awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she quickly learns she is being hunted by her high-ranking general father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen soldiers last night. 

**********
From: David Laurie

The reserved widow of a recently deceased soldier awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she is being hunted by her relentless officer father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen men last night. 

yep

Edible version:
as in high?   (ho ho)

A startled
!
woman awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she quickly learns she is being hunted by her high-ranking general father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen soldiers last night. 

another problem is that the phrase ‘General father’ sounds weird so

A timid young widow awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site where she quickly learns she is being hunted by her high-ranking father, who believes she’s responsible for the slaughter of fifteen soldiers last night. 

I think it’s either

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan black site, to find she’s being hunted by her high-ranking father, after fifteen soldiers were slaughtered last night

OR

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan black site, to find she’s being hunted by her high-ranking father, who thinks she’s the creature who slaughtered fifteen soldiers last night. 

**********
Carson Reeves

I’m having issues with the word “timid” as it’s an adjective that sounds very small for a story with such high stakes (and high body count). ‘Timid’ is an adjective you would use in a comedy.  That’s why I’m trying to change it.

I’m a little worried that with “Alaskan black site,” people aren’t going to know what you mean.  That’s why I put “military” in there.

Thoughts?

**********
David Laurie

Deffo onboard with military
I put it back in too
And took out remote
Cos Alaska

Timid is accurate
And I hope IRONIC

A female sergeant wakes up and is accused of 15 murders…

Is not as cool as

The last person you’d ever suspect wakes up…

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan military black site, to find she’s being hunted by her high-ranking father, after fifteen soldiers were slaughtered last night

From: David Laurie

Also
You classed it as
Horror / Thriller
Which I think is accurate.

But I worry that, for a werewolf, it is a step too far away from Horror as a main genre.

I guess that is the bed I wrote for myself.

Btw, there’s no silver bullets etc
Instead it’s science based, DNA, CRISPR technology

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Okay, if you’re standing firm on “timid,” I will concede.  :)

We need a better way to describe the father.  “high ranking” doesn’t work.  Can you give me his exact military title and his job outside of this movie?  The wording of “After fifteen soldiers were slaughtered last night” feels a little too casual.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan military black site to find that she’s being hunted by her high-ranking officer father after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

**********
From: David Laurie

Okay, if you’re standing firm on “timid,” I will concede.  :)

Yay

We need a better way to describe the father.  “high ranking” does’t work.  Can you give me his exact military title and his job outside of this movie? 

He’s a general
Based at the pentagon and charged with weapons development

The changeling DNA is being developed as a biotech weapon, supersoldiers type thing

Ivy, her sister was running the project but has gone nuts and is churning through “volunteers” and burning the bodies

The wording of “After fifteen soldiers were slaughtered last night” feels a little too casual. 

Ok

The number needs to feel “significant”

A timid young widow awakens naked on a remote Alaskan military black site to find that she’s being hunted by her high-ranking officer father after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

See
I like that
But I can hear the message board pedants saying that the last bit is not directly linked to the first
Even tho, to my ears, it is

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Maybe we need to move some things around to make it sound smoother…

After waking up naked and confused on a secluded Alaskan military site, a reticent young widow discovers she’s the prey of her high-ranking officer father, who’s pursuing her following the slaughter of fifteen soldiers by a mysterious creature.

***********
From: David Laurie

hmmmm

I thinnnnk that’s a bit unwieldy, maybe a clause too many

I trimmed the one below to

A timid young widow awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site to find she’s being hunted by her father, a DC General, after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

I think the a Pentagon General or a DC General  is less bumpy and more organic
plus it has:
ironic underdog protag
overmatching antag
violent monster mystery
hunted  which  implies a call to action

From: David Laurie

his flows a little better
A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find she’s being hunted by her father, a DC General, following the slaughter of fifteen soldiers by a mysterious creature.

**********
From: Carson Reeves

We’re getting close.  What I’m trying to do is link the first section with the “mysterious creature” so it doesn’t sound like it’s coming out of nowhere.  If she’s just naked, does that tell us enough?  That’s why I was going with, “naked and confused,” to imply that something has just happened to her and she’s scared and doesn’t know what it is. But I don’t like having two words there since it makes it longer.

The only other thing that bothers me is the dad’s occupation.  It’s the clunkiest part.  I wish we had the perfect descriptor there.

A timid young widow awakens naked on an Alaskan military black site to find she’s being hunted by her father, a decorated army general, after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

From: Carson Reeves

Okay, let’s give it a day. I find that it’s easier to find the path when you’ve had some time away from the logline.  But we’re definitely closer.

**********
From: David Laurie

OK agreed

I’ll let it sit

did you see the one i sent a minute ago
it flows better
A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find she’s being hunted by her father, a DC General, following the slaughter of fifteen soldiers by a mysterious creature.

**********
From: Carson Reeves

I think it’s a little better.

**********
From: David Laurie

re your points below

A timid young widow awakens naked and confused on a military black site in Alaska to find herself being hunted by her father, a DC General, after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

I like find herself for the same reason I like awakens

i think confused is implied.
who’s NOT confused by waking up naked in snow on a secret base?

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a DC General, after fifteen of his soldiers were slaughtered by a mysterious creature.

i like
awakens naked
after fifteen
and I especially like
fifteen of his soldiers
cos it seems like he cares more about his job than her
which he does

From: David Laurie

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a DC General, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a mysterious creature.

torn apart is more ANIMAL

From: David Laurie

military
DC General
soldiers

seems like overkill

I’d be inclined to use MEN instead of soldiers but that is a bit sexist
so if we keep soldiers, we can lose military

**********
From: Carson Reeves

I think I like “slaughtered” more than “torn apart.”  It sounds more visceral and violent.  But if you love “torn apart,” it’s fine.  I don’t like “DC General.”  Every time I read it, I wonder exactly what it means.  Like Washington DC? Then why is he in Alaska?  I’m sure it makes sense but you can’t take chances in these loglines.  Everything has to be as clean as a surgery room.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a mysterious creature.

**********
From: David Laurie

I think I like “slaughtered” more than “torn apart.”  It sounds more visceral and violent.

Her killings are very visceral
She tears soldiers heads off more than once
I soldiers being slaughtered  could be achieved with an AR-15
Torn apart sounds more claws and teeth to me

But if you love “torn apart,” it’s fine.  I don’t like “DC General.”  Every time I read it, I wonder exactly what it means.  Like Washington DC? Then why is he in Alaska?  I’m sure it makes sense

I agree
I also am not keen on the commas around it, fucking up the flow

but you can’t take chances in these loglines.  Everything has to be as clean as a surgery room.

I hear you

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a mysterious creature.

I like this.
It’s accurate and it hits the tone.
it’s 35 words which is on the edge of acceptable; but I think it has maybe 3 too many polysyllabic words
which fu**s the flow a bit

the closer it is to a haiku the better, right?

I also don’t really like mysterious in loglines
like: this is the time to tell us the mystery

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were torn apart by an unseen creature.

thoughts

From: David Laurie

Good morning/evening btw

On an Alaskan black site, a timid young widow awakens naked and finds she’s being hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were torn apart by an unseen creature.

**********
From: Carson Reeves

I definitely don’t like the re-shaped version of the logline. Let’s stick with what we’ve got.  I think the below is very good.  Only quibble, like you, is “mysterious.”  I think it works but could probably be better.  “Unseen” is too weak a word for this scenario.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a mysterious creature.

maybe…

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a nightmarish creature.

**********
From: David Laurie

I definitely don’t like the re-shaping version of the logline. Let’s stick with what we’ve got.

ok

think you missed one of my emails  just now.

this loses a bunch of syllables but stays true

I think ‘she’s being hunted’ is punchier/more active

I quite like unseen, and in the story, the general has not seen what his daughter becomes.
Anyone who sees her, dies
(until she makes friends with a cop, whom she spares yadda yadda romance budding)

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find she’s being hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were torn apart by an unseen creature.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find she’s being hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were ripped apart by an unseen creature.

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after his men were torn apart by a ferocious creature.

**********
From: Carson Reeves

I would put “fifteen” back in there.  And I would put “soldiers” back in there.  Both give the situation more weight.  So…

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a ferocious creature.

**********
From: David Laurie

do you not think finds she’s being hunted is better than finds herself hunted

*********
From: Carson Reeves

how would “finds herself hunted” look in actual practice?

**********
From: David Laurie

fair warning, I am a bit of a grammar Nazi. My mum was an English teacher
so
I thinnnnnk
finds she’s being hunted means the hunt is under way, which it is
and
finds herself hunted is flappy enough to mean the hunt might start later in the story

*********
From: Carson Reeves

Yeah, but you also have to take into consideration how it reads and sounds within the context of the logline. It sounds better, in my opinion. And when I hear “finds herself hunted,” I think the hunt is happening right now.

*********
From: David Laurie

OK
might be just me being fussy

I concede it flows better

So

A timid young widow awakens naked on a black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his soldiers were torn apart by a ferocious creature

it’s definitely one of those, this is the set up not the story loglines but the setup IS the story and the whole movie is a hunt, one way or another

I think saying his men, rather than soldiers, implies a sort of paternal concern for the chewed-up guys, which is relevant
annnnnd it shortens/smoothens the last clause
but
it takes the original three army terms down to one
so
maybe

A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his men were torn apart by a ferocious creature.

I am into this version. You?

**********
From: Carson Reeves

Yeah, I liked the way you phrased “men” in this last one.  It works for me.  I think we’ve got it. :)

**********
From: David Laurie

yeah

I agree

thanks man

pleasure doing business

*****END OF EXCHANGE*****

And there you have it! Here are the old and new loglines!

Old: A timid young war widow, who awakens naked on a snowy roof at dawn with soldiers shooting at her, has to figure out who she is and what the hell happened to her last night. Fast.

New: A timid young widow awakens naked on a military black site in Alaska to find herself hunted by her father, a ruthless general, after fifteen of his men were torn apart by a ferocious creature.

Genre: True Story
Premise: To get the performance he demands for “The Shining”, despotic director Stanley Kubrick emotionally tortures relative newbie Shelley Duvall. When she refuses to play the victim any longer, Shelley uncovers dark secrets that may completely destroy the film — and her sanity.
About: This was one of our entries in the Halloween Logline Showdown. David Kessler has been a longtime Scriptshadow reader and powered his script, Minimata, forward over the years, getting Johnny Depp attached. The movie, about the devastating effects of mercury poisoning, has a 92% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.
Writer: Asher Farkas and David K. Kessler
Details: 113 pages

I’m still experiencing some PTSD from the key duplication fiasco which is why this review is appearing on November 1st instead of October 31st. I had convinced myself that Halloween was on Wednesday. Maybe it’s a good idea for me to not drive today. Clearly, I don’t know which way is up and which way is down.

Ironically, this is the best state of mind to be in while reading today’s script, seeing as our protagonist is being mind-f**ed by the greatest director in cinema history. Well, according to Stanley Kubrick, that is. The Kubster always had a little ego on him. Are you ready for this post-Halloween ride? Grab your set of backup keys and let’s find out.

It’s the 70s and Actress Shelley Duvall (awkwardly tall, crooked teeth) has been steadily moving up the actor food chain. Her rise is a true underdog story. She had no desire to be an actress and was randomly discovered by Robert Altman. As a result, she doesn’t train. She acts by instinct. That’s exactly why Stanley Kubrick wants her for his Stephen King adaptation of The Shining.

Shelley will have to leave boyfriend, singer Paul Simon, to go shoot in England for 4 months. Of course, that’s an optimistic estimation of the shoot’s length. With Kubrick, you have no idea how long a shoot is going to last.

When Shelley arrives on set, the intimidating Mr. Kubrick tells her that he likes to use a lot of takes and if she isn’t cool with that, she can be replaced. He also tells her that he chose her because he needed someone who could easily be broken. Confused by that comment, Shelley heads to her room.

It isn’t long before Jack Nicholson shows up. Jack looks like an old pro. Whereas everyone else is walking on eggshells around Kubrick, Nicholson rolls with it, seemingly unaffected by anything he says. Even Kubrick seems a little put off by this – that someone wouldn’t cower at his feet every time he walked in a room.

Immediately, strange things start happening to Shelley. After taking a shower, she finds a new script on her bed, despite her room having been locked. She says hi to Margaret, Kubrick’s secretary, who she met back in New York. But Margaret insists that she’s never met Shelley in her life. She starts getting phone calls in her room with no one on the other end. She tries to watch TV but, somehow, there are only horror movies playing. None of the other channels work.

On set, Kubrick puts her through the wringer. When she hasn’t memorized her lines (which he just sent changes to earlier in the day) he announces to the entire crew that they’re done for the day because Shelley couldn’t memorize her lines, embarrassing her. Kubrick brings the boy actor, Danny, in with his fake make-up bruises and throws them in Shelley’s face to get her to be more emotive during crucial scenes.

But the worst thing they do is they get Shelley a dog to cheer her up, only to then facilitate the dog “escaping” and then being brutally killed. Shelley witnesses the aftermath of the death and becomes inconsolable. She requests time off but Kubrick insists she keep working and thrusts her right back into a scene just hours later.

Then, of course, you’ve got the takes. We’re not talking 30 takes. We’re not talking 60. Or 90. We’re talking some time enduring over 100 takes! It is insanity. And Kubrick seems to revel in it. But will it break Shelley to the point where she’ll no longer be able to work? Or is there a light at the end of this tunnel? Great art must be suffered for, argues Kubrick. That saying will be put to the test.

Yesterday we talked about coming up with a movie idea and then deciding which direction to take it in. Do you take a movie about a group of people coming into a bunch of money in a goofy fun direction? Or a dark comedic direction?

Well, with today’s script, we actually get to see what it looks like when a concept is taken in two different directions. That’s because this idea was also explored by Colin Bannon in his Black List script, “Let’s Go Again.”

Bannon’s interpretation was different in a couple of ways. It threw us into the fire immediately. And it kept pounding us with the craziness relentlessly. It was the kind of execution that never gave you time to breathe. Kessler and Farkas’s version is more of a slow-build. It exists just as much in the spaces between the scenario as it does the scenario itself.

There are plenty of slow moments here. For example, when Shelley goes back to her room to prepare for the next day, Kessler and Farkas will stay there with her. Sit in her frustration.

I always feel like the scariest moments happen in the build up which is why I was appreciating this version of the idea so much. Especially when you’re talking about someone going crazy. The entertainment comes from her and us wondering if she’s really going crazy. When Shelley comes out of her shower to find the latest draft of the script on her bed and her hotel door still locked from the inside, we’re freaking out because it’s all happening in real time.

I just remember with Bannon’s script the insanity was being beaten over our head twenty times a scene. There was never a time in that script where we could breathe.

Another advantage of slow build-ups is they create an evolution in the story. We start slow, then get medium, and eventually ramp up to fast. So each section of the screenplay feels different. Whereas if you start off fast then stay fast the whole time, the entire movie feels the same. Most scripts need variation. People don’t like when you stay in one gear for an entire 2 hours, no matter what gear it is.

So then the answer is: “always take your time,” right? Not necessarily. Movies do favor urgency. Plots tend to work best when they move fast. So starting your movie in media res is a perfectly reasonable creative choice. Also, studios and audiences tend to like faster-moving stories. It’s less work for them.

Here’s something that might help you decide which is best for you. The better the writer you are, the more you can take your time. Good writers understand how to keep things entertaining when the story is moving slowly. Average writers fall apart when they try and do this. So, if you’re someone who doesn’t think of yourself as a master of suspense or a wordsmith, it may be best if you keep things moving quickly, as it’s easier to camouflage your writing deficiencies.

Maybe that’s why I enjoyed this script less when it hit its fast-paced second half. There’s something about descending into insanity that doesn’t jibe with the way I like my entertainment. I like my screenplays with structure. I like to feel that the writer has a plan and that we’re moving somewhere with purpose. Descending into insanity doesn’t work well with that approach. And I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying I personally don’t like it. At a certain point you’re just going nuts over and over and nothing’s really changing.

Another quibble I had was that Farkas and Kessler are cheating. They’re sneakily straddling both sides of the fence. They want the intellectual property advantages of referencing the real people and real event that make up this story, while also making things up when they wanted to. I’m guessing that massacring a dog to get a better performance out of Shelley Duvall didn’t happen.

It’s not a huge deal but one of the cool parts of watching a movie like this is you can say, “Wow, I can’t believe that really happened. That’s nuts!” You can’t do that here. You have to concede that that heart-stopping scene may have happened… or may have been totally made up. To me, that’s a bit of a cheat. I think they either should’ve stuck to the truth or did what Bannon did (invented fake characters then used the Kubrick-Duvall situation as inspiration).

Of course, the movie goes full-on super-psycho in its last 20 pages, letting us know this is complete fiction. And I probably would’ve enjoyed it more if I was right there with all the Shining references. I can tell David and his writing partner have seen the movie 50+ times. I’ve only seen it twice so and both viewings were a long time ago. So I didn’t get the references that I’m sure Shining super-fans will love. For this and the reasons I stated above, Scaring Shelley didn’t quite make it to “worth the read” territory for me. But I’ll tell you what. If you’re a Shining fan, you’ll probably love this.

Script link: Scaring Shelley

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

What I learned: Keep us in the loop. In a movie like this where it’s taking place over a series of months (that’s how long the shoot is), it’s a good idea to tell us WHERE WE ARE IN THE SHOOT. For example, every once in a while, include a title card that says, “Day 45,” which is what Kessler does here. Because, if you don’t do that, you have no idea where the reader thinks they are. You might be on day 90 of the shoot but the reader thinks you’re on day 10. So you guys are experiencing two different films. I just read a consult script where this exact issue occurred. It was a time loop script and I thought we’d looped 50 times. After talking to the writer, it turns out we’d looped 2000 times. So I said to him, “You have to tell us that (or at least strongly hint at it). You can’t just assume we’ll know.”

Today we take on the genre YOU SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON if making money is your priority as a screenwriter.

Genre: True Crime
Premise: Set in 1981, a serial killer kidnaps his latest victim, who proceeds to use religion to convince him that he is not the killer he has accepted himself to be.
About: Huge bidding war for this one that Amazon/MGM just won. It was an article in Vanity Fair. Stephen Morin’s killings are mostly forgotten over time due to several reasons, one of them being that the victim in this story, Margy Palm, wasn’t interested in selling the rights to her story to Hollywood, who she felt would turn it into some cheap surface-level story about the power of God. Only recently having gone through therapy, Palm has come to the conclusion that it’s finally time that her story be told.
Writer: Julie Miller
Details: About 6000 words long (the length of 4 Scriptshadow posts)

Sydney Sweeney is perrrrrrfect for this role.

What is it that Jerry Maguire said on that fateful day of his firing?

Oh yeah.

SHOWWWW MEEEE THE MONAAAAAAAYYYY!!!

Ever since the spec boom ended, screenwriters have been looking for a substitute source of instant income, a way where they could write something and get paid for it immediately. Well, my friends, that something is here. It’s called True Crime.

True Crime has always sold. Heck, they were making these things as TV movies all the way back in the 70s. But ever since podcasts supercharged the genre, True Crime has become more marketable than ever.

From The Watcher to Dirty John to Love & Death to The Staircase to The Act to Mindhunter to Dahmer. And now you have this whole new sub-genre of shows inspired by true crime, like Only Murders in the Building, Based on a True Story, and The Afterparty.

Without mincing words, you have to be more into television than movies if you want to sell one of these things. But it actually doesn’t matter because, in order to sell them, you’re going to write an article first. Whoever then buys the article will decide if they want to turn it into a movie or a TV show.

“True Crime: True Faith,” set in Texas in 1981, introduces us to Stephen Morin, a serial killer who seems to have escaped mainstream attention due to the fact that he was killing at the same time as the much flashier hipper serial killer, Ted Bunny.

Morin targets a young pretty blonde wife named Margy Palm, who’s returning to her car from K-Mart after doing some Christmas shopping. At this point, Morin had raped and killed dozens of women, something Palm wasn’t yet aware of. But she knew once he took her hostage that he was an angry dangerous man.

And yet, as he made her drive outside of San Antonio to a more secluded area to do who knows what with her, Palm didn’t feel afraid. A religious woman, she began explaining to Morin that he had the devil inside of him and during the many times when they’d park (Morin would get hungry, for example, and randomly head to some fast food restaurant) she would attempt to cast the demons out of his head.

At first, Morin was furious that he’d been stuck with some “religious freak.” But the more Palm spoke about God, the more sense it made to the killer. Palm busted out some scripture for Morin to read and soon, the two were sharing deep intense experiences from their pasts, bonding on a level that even Palm admits, to this day, she had never experienced before.

After 8 hours of driving around, Palm had successfully converted Morin into a born-again Christian. His lifelong anger had all but evaporated. She told him that there was a preacher he needed to visit in another part of Texas and took Morin to the train station so he could go to this man and confess his sins. She gave him her scripture and off he went. The police were waiting for him at the station where he was still reading the scripture.

Morin would later go on to receive three life sentences and the death penalty. But Morin started to call Palm from prison and, unthinkably, the two became friends. Palm would come to see him 15 times over the next four years and visited him a day before his execution. Morin called those last four years the best four years of his life because he found God.

The real Margy Palm

Time to start writing some true crime articles, right!

I know some of you are like, “ehhh, I don’t know. I just want to write scripts, Carson. I don’t want to write short stories or articles or any of that nonsense.” I get it. We writers are creatures of habit. But let me say this. One of the things I would’ve changed when I was a young screenwriter was not being so stubborn. I thought I knew how to do it and I was only going to do it that way. I know that if I was more open to other ideas and trying new things, my path would’ve been different.

There’s a reason these articles are selling beyond them being true crime. Much like short stories, they’re easily digestible to busy industry people. Which means that when agents send these packages out, people are more willing to read them because the time investment is much smaller.

So, how do you find a good true crime story to write about?

It’s not that different from looking for any concept. You’re looking for fresh angles that haven’t been explored yet. You’re looking for interesting characters, meaty parts that actors would want to play. And as I tell you all the time, you’ve discovered a gold mine if the true crime story has some element of irony to it.

One particular sentence stuck out to me in this article. “I became friends with a serial killer.” Take a good long look at the line. That line is the face of irony. You’re not supposed to be friends with a serial killer. Serial killers are evil. Especially ones who wanted to kill you. And yet that’s the primary relationship here – one where this offbeat friendship emerges from the most unlikely of circumstances.

I can imagine how they might adapt this into a TV show. You start off with this scene in prison where Palm has come to visit Morin. We don’t know who these people are yet or the context under which they know each other. But they’re laughing. They’re having a good time. And then we smash-cut back to that fateful day where he grabs her in the parking lot and forces her into the car.

You could have a lot of fun juxtaposing those two worlds. And, actually, you could write this as a movie as well, if you wanted. Any time you see a tight timeframe, that’s ideal for a film. That 8 hours that Morin kidnaps Palm for… that’s a perfect timeframe for a movie, especially if you could convince us that she really was in danger and that he’s going to kill her.

But this one comes back to the characters. Good memorable characters are sooooooooo hard to write. They’re so hard to write. It amazes me whenever one shows up in a movie. And it shocks me when one shows up in a screenplay, where you’re even less likely to run into well-written characters.

Morin goes through this clear arc as a character that is perfect for a story. But he’s also volatile. The article points out that one second he’s sharing his biggest regrets to Palm and the next he’s screaming at her for being rich and having a perfect life. Then you have Palm, who’s the perfect underdog. She’s the overmatched girl who should die just like the 30 girls before her. But she’s ACTIVE and takes a different tactic than you’re supposed to take. And it ends up working and… who’s not going to root for that character?

Also, the same rule for storytelling applies today as it did 100 years ago: If you have at least one dead body, you’ve got yourself a story.

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

What I learned: So many writers revert to guns and violence for their characters to solve problems. But I promise you that it is ALWAYS more satisfying to the audience and to the reader if the character OUTWITS their opponent. That’s what this story is about. It’s about a woman who outthinks her captor.