James Gunn helped me remember one of the most powerful components of a great story

I was watching James Gunn do an interview with actor and podcaster, Michael Rosenbaum. For reference, they’re good friends. And, also, Rosenbaum played Lex Luthor in the show, Smallville.

One of the topics that came up in the podcast was “superhero fatigue,” which Gunn admitted was a huge problem for moviegoing in the current era. But he went even further than that. He said he’d grown fatigued by all spectacle movies.

One thing he said really stuck with me. He said he couldn’t remember the last time he watched the third act of one of these spectacle movies AND ACTUALLY CARED ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.

This is the same reason why I’ve been so reluctant to see Hollywood movies lately. It’s why I didn’t see Ant-Man. It’s why I didn’t see Fast X. It’s actually why I didn’t see Guardians (as I assumed it would be yet another third act Marvel mess).

But it was what Gunn said next that really hit hard. He said, “You don’t feel anything for the characters. And if you don’t feel anything for the characters, you don’t care what’s going on.”

This immediately got me thinking about how to get the audience to care. What makes me care about a story? Luckily, I just read a great story yesterday, in “Wild,” about a werewolf who takes in a thief on the run. What was it about that script that made me care?

Simple, really.

The central relationship.

We put so much focus on the hero in screenwriting that we’ve lost sight of the fact that what really makes us care is our main story pairing. Because just like in real life, there’s power in numbers. Why rest everything on a lone hero’s accomplishment when you can pair two people up and have them experience that victory together?

There is something about watching two people connect and overcome obstacles that hits the audience harder than when just one person does it. Would it have been cool, yesterday, to see just Liz beat up all the bad guys with her werewolf powers? Sure. Would it have been cool to see just Nick kill all the shady gangsters who chased him into town? Sure.

But watching them both do it TOGETHER?  Watching them depend on each other? That feeling of accomplishment is multiplied because we’re not just happy for him or happy for her. We’re happy because each of them helped SOMEONE ELSE. It was not a selfish act. It was a selfless connective act. And that’s what gets audiences feeling all warm and fuzzy inside.

I relate this to playing tennis. I kinda hated singles growing up. I felt good when I won, I guess. But I was never happy when I was playing the match. I was always screaming at myself and upset that some part of my game wasn’t working. When I won, I was just happy that I didn’t lose. I felt like Jokic after winning the NBA finals. Just let me go home.

But I LOVED doubles. The specific reason I loved doubles was because when I won, I got to share that victory with someone else. Usually, a good friend. There was nothing better than that feeling.

What James Gunn is talking about is the erosion of the screenwriter’s focus on this tool. The reason we don’t care about the ending is not because of all the cheesy VFX – although that’s certainly part of it. The reason we don’t care is because we don’t care about these characters and we certainly don’t care about their connection with one another.

None of this is to say these companies aren’t trying.

No producer is going out there and saying, “Who cares what the audience thinks of our characters.” Quite the opposite. If you listen to Kathleen Kennedy, she can’t stop talking about the importance of characters.

So then why do all her characters suck?

It’s because they’ve forgotten that it isn’t just about making your hero likable. It’s about the Power of Two. You have to make the hero likable and then you have to develop a compelling relationship with another character who we care about and now your story is turbocharged. Cause we’re not just rooting for the hero. We’re not just rooting for the co-hero. We’re rooting for them as a team.

“Okay,” you’re saying. “But how do you develop a Power of Two who we actually care about, Carson? Cause just saying ‘create two characters instead of one’ doesn’t automatically result in a great script.”

True dat.

We can look to yesterday to get our answer to this. There’s one primary ingredient you absolutely must inject. And that’s CONFLICT. You have to create conflict within that primary relationship.

What that conflict does is it PUSHES your central characters apart. And then, in order for them to be victorious, they must PULL together. If you get that push-pull right? That’s your golden ticket to screenplay nirvana. If you do nothing else right but that, you’ll have a good screenplay. That’s the secret sauce.

So, yesterday, what’s PUSHING them apart is that Liz is a werewolf. But they can’t defeat the sheriff’s family or the criminals unless they PULL together.

But don’t take some unproven Black List script’s word for it. Look at two of the most successful movies of all time – Titanic and Avatar. Jack and Rose are pushed apart by society. But they must pull together to survive the sinking of the ship. Jake and Neytiri are pushed apart by being from two different cultures but must pull together to defeat the human’s military attack.

That’ll do the majority of the work for you.

But if you want to really make people care, follow this one-two punch: Make the central relationship interesting in some way. And make it specific to your movie.

You can’t just have two people be friends and we’ll magically care about their relationship more than anything in the world. Use the conflict to create an interesting pairing.

That’s what I liked about Wild so much. It was such an interesting dynamic. He was on the run and needed a place to stay. He doesn’t like this woman but he’s got no other choice so he stays in her barn. She’s a werewolf. She could potentially kill him. Talk about a messed up way to start a relationship. This interesting pairing that has conflict up the wazoo and was specific to the movie made for two people we instantly cared about.

Contrast that with Jason Reitman’s Labor Day where the female lead pretty much likes the criminal right away. He likes her right away. They’re reenacting the pottery scene from “Ghost” within five minutes of getting to her house. It’s just boring. Without that genuine conflict and interesting connection, we’re bored by them. And if a relationship starts off boring, it’s almost impossible to salvage it.

I’m reminded of one of my favorite movies growing up, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, which is the perfect example of this formula’s power.

You have selfish Ferris, who just wants to have the best ditch-day ever. And then you have Cameron, who’s sick as a dog and just wants to be left alone. That’s the conflict that’s pushing them apart.

I can’t emphasize this enough. John Hughes could’ve easily made Ferris and Cameron the best of pals, party animals who were both on the same page about ditching school that day. Many lesser writers would’ve written that exact setup. By Hughes creating that conflict, he makes their relationship instantly more compelling.

And if they’re going to have the best day ever, they’re going to have to pull together despite that. That push-pull is the movie-within-the-movie that makes Ferris Bueller’s Day Off so iconic.

That scene at the end? The one where they’re sitting in Cameron’s dad’s car trying to run back the odometer? The level of emotion in that scene? That’s what Gunn is talking about when he says we don’t see that anymore. Because writers and studios aren’t doing the character work required between the two leads to make moments like THAT happen.

If they made that movie now, that scene would just be words. We wouldn’t feel a thing.

So, on your next script, make us care about your hero, yes. But, also, make sure the central relationship with that other main character is in place. Because we will care more about two people succeeding together than one person succeeding alone. Always.

Get a Script Consultation With Carson for $150 OFF! – In addition to logline consultations (just $25!), I do full screenplay consultations, pilot script consultations, outline consultations, first act consultations. Anything you need help with, I can help! If you mention this article anytime this week, I will give you 150 dollars off a feature (or 100 off a pilot) consultation. :). E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com

(TOP 25!!!) – One of the cooler crossovers I’ve read in a long time. A History of Violence meets An American Werewolf in London meets Let The Right One In.

Genre: Horror
Premise: A werewolf living on a remote farm with her older sister takes in a thief on the run just 72 hours before the next full moon.
About: This script finished on the Black List. The above logline you read was my logline. But since I’ll reference it in the review, here’s the very un-horror sounding logline from the Black List: “A young woman is determined to protect a thief on the run when he holes up in her small town, even if it means revealing a darker, more violent secret of her own.”
Writer: Michael Burgner
Details: 110 pages

It can be VERY difficult choosing a script to review from the Black List. Make the wrong choice and you could find yourself sifting through 120 pages of high school freshman level writing. Make the right choice, and you may find yourself the next Nightcrawler.

The stakes are high.

For this one, I noticed that Sugar23 represented it. I know they represent creators who did True Detective and 13 Reasons Why. I also noticed that even though the Black List logline made the script sound like a drama, that the writer had a couple of short films to his name that were horror. So I figured… hmmmm, maybe that means this one is a horror film too.

That was enough to seal the deal. And boy did that research pay off!

We meet Liz, who lives in a Kansas farmhouse with her sister, Jean. Liz has ugly scar tissue all around her neck. What’s that about? She walks downstairs where Jean is waiting. The two walk outside, across the yard, to the storm cellar. They go inside. There’s a big rusty chain and collar attached to a concrete wall. Jean and Liz place it over Liz’s neck, lock it, and Jean heads back into the house.

Later that night, a semi-truck screeches to a halt on the nearby highway. Jean sees this. Oh no. Jean runs across the field to the truck, hollering at the driver to get back in his truck. The driver, who thinks he hit something, gets WHACKED by a blur, pulled into the nearby corn field. Jean turns around and sprints with everything she’s got back to her house. It doesn’t take long for us to figure out what happened. Liz is a werewolf and got free from her restraints.

Cut to a medium-sized town several weeks later where Nick and Crispy barge into a strip club to rob it at the end of the night. After Crispy goes rogue and gets shot, Nick is able to get away with the money. But the owner’s security, a Navajo psychopath named Hashke, along with the owner himself, are already planning on how to retrieve his dough and torture this man.

During the getaway on his motorcycle, Nick’s battery was shot. So when the motorcycle dies, he’s forced to hitchhike. This is where he meets Liz, who looks like she’s going to pick him up, but instead tells him to get cleaned up and drives off.

Furious, he walks the rest of the way to town, where he runs into Liz again, ignores her, and heads to the hardware store to get a battery for his bike. The owner says it’s a special delivery and will take 72 hours. When Liz sees Nick throwing around money, she offers him a place to stay at her barn. Realizing that people will talk if he stays in town, he decides to take her up on her offer.

Meanwhile, Ruby, a sheriff, has made her way into town to find out exactly what happened to her husband (the trucker), and Hashke, taking a page out of Anton Chigurh’s book, has arrived in town in search of Nick. Oh yeah, and did I mention there’s a full moon in three days? About the same amount of time that Nick plans to stay at Liz’s? Yeah, I’m starting to think we’re going to get one hell of a climax.

When people talk about the difference between amateur and pro writing, it often sounds arbitrary. A lot of times it just means the reader likes this script better than that one.

So let’s get specific. Cause this script is a a great example of what a truly good screenwriter looks like when they’re putting together a story. I can show you specific examples of what the difference between advanced and intermmediate looks like. So let’s get into it.

For starters, there’s the robbery that opens Nick’s storyline. Nick is robbing a strip joint with Crispy. They get in there, it’s a room full of people, and when the initial threat of a stick-up doesn’t receive the proper fearful response, Crispy slides open his jacket to reveal that he’s strapped with explosives.

Nick stares over at this the same way everyone else does, with a giant “WTF” look on his face. This was the first indication that we’re dealing with an advanced writer. 99% of writers are going to have their robbers in lockstep, cause they’ll think of them as one entity.

But it’s so much more interesting to the story if one of these two go rouge. It instantly turns a black and white situation gray. And that’s where all the fun is.

Cut to a few scenes later. Nick’s motorcycle breaks down and he’s hitching on the side of the road. Liz is driving down that same road, sees him, and stops. Keep in mind, Nick still has blood on his face from the botched robbery.

Now, let me explain to you how an amateur writer thinks in this moment. They know that Nick is going to stay at Liz’s place. They know that’s the next major plot point. So they view things through the eyes of getting to that plot point ASAP. Therefore, they have Liz see this bloody man hitchhiking, pick him up, and take him to her home.

But in what reality would that happen? What woman is going to pick a bloodied hitchhiker up. That’s how the advanced writer looks at it. They look at it more from a perspective of reality. Of course you’re not going to pick him up. So after a few words with the man, Liz tells him that if he expects anyone to pick him up, he’s going to have to get cleaned up first. Then she drives off.

But here’s where the writing goes from advanced to very advanced: That scene does double duty. Not only is it more truthful but it establishes REAL CONFLICT between the two. Nick hates this girl now. The beginner screenwriter just has his two leads hate each other because it works better for what he’s trying to do.  Who needs a *reason* for that? Here, the writer actually creates a reason for Nick to dislike Liz, establishing the necessary conflict between the two leads.

Later, the two re-meet at the hardware store. Liz sees Nick throwing money around. Liz’s farm is going under. Money is everything to her right now. So she offers him a place to stay while he waits for his battery to come in (another well-done, underrated, part of the plotting – the time constraint) and when she brings him back to her place, Ruby is sitting there, the wife of the dead trucker.

This is an EXTREMELY strong writing choice and let me tell you why.

Nine of out ten writers would’ve taken a break at this moment in the story. We just went through Liz meeting Nick on the road, Nick buying the new battery, the two negotiating him staying over… it would’ve been easy to take a couple of scenes off with Liz just sort of sitting in her room and looking tired. Or showing a “day in the life” of living on the farm. I know a lot of writers who would’ve done that. Five pages of mush before we get back to the plot.

By having this obstacle waiting for her – the wife of the man she killed sitting on the couch – tells me that this writer gets it. He knows that movies in small towns on farms die a lot quicker on the page than the Mission Impossibles and the Jurassic World’s of the world. So he knows that he has to keep things moving. It was moments like this that elevated this script above 99% of the other scripts out there.

And then, like any good horror film, you have this looming danger that’s coming. We know that the full moon is 3 days away. We know that Nick is the perfect food source. Nobody will miss him if he disappears. So we’re wondering, is he dead meat?  Or is she going to start liking him enough that that doesn’t happen?  Or maybe still happens?

And then, as if all that isn’t enough, you have not one, but TWO looming obstacles imposing on the central storyline. One is Ruby, a cop who wants to know what happened to her husband. And two is Hashke (and ultimately the strip joint owner), who want to kill Nick and get his money back.

I honestly don’t know if you could’ve come up with a better series of creative choices than was made here.

All of this sitting on top of the best creative choice of all, which was to make this a horror film. Too many writers would’ve written the version of this that the Black List logline implies. Which is a criminal who stays with a woman while avoiding the bad guys chasing him. That story ISN’T SEXY ENOUGH for a screenplay. You need a genre element to make people care (not to mention, make it marketable!). And that’s what we get here. We get the werewolf element.

How do we know that the non-genre version doesn’t work? Cause we’ve seen it. Jason Reitman’s snore-fest, Labor Day. Same premise. But no werewolf. Which equaled 1000x more boring.

This is the kind of script that, if you can internalize all the choices made here, starting from the concept then moving into the plotting itself, you will massively improve your own screenwriting. Every screenwriter should read this script.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive (Top 25!)
[ ] genius

What I learned: The “Meet Mean.” We’ve all heard of the “Meet Cute.” But how much more interesting is it when your male and female leads are introduced via a “Meet Mean,” as was the case here? Liz drives up to Nick, asks him a few questions, lets him know there’s no way she’s letting him in her car, then drives off. I find that WAY MORE interesting than if they had an instant obsessive infatuation with one another.

While the box office helps screenwriters keep track of industry trends, which helps inform them when it comes time to write something, the majority of that data is useless. To screenwriters, I mean. There isn’t anything the average screenwriter can learn from Super Mario Brothers making a billion dollars. All movies in the top 10 live in Studio IP La-La Land, a destination reserved exclusively for the titans of the industry.

In order to learn something from the box office as a screenwriter, you want to track ORIGINAL projects. Projects that you could’ve written yourself, had you the foresight to do so. These are the projects that savvy screenwriters should be emulating and inspired by, as these are the scripts from screenwriters that actually get made.

Today I’m going to list the top 10 original projects, ranked by worldwide box office take, and tell you what you can learn from each of them.  I’m sure there will be some comments about the underwhelming box office take of some of these films.   But let’s keep things in perspective.  M3GAN, the number one original movie of the year, cost 1/20th the budget of Super Mario Brothers, the number one overall movie of the year.  When you take that into consideration, you realize these box office performances are a lot better than they first look.

M3GAN
Genre: Horror
Domestic: 95 million
Worldwide: 176 million

Lesson: I confess I did not see M3GAN’s success coming. I thought the living doll horror story had been done to death (see what I did there?). They couldn’t even get a better known doll franchise, Child’s Play, to drive ticket sales. Why would I think rando M3GAN would be able to? But if there’s anything M3GAN’S success reminds us, it’s that horror is the go-to genre if you’re a spec screenwriter who actually wants to make money. It honestly can’t be beat. And looking back at previously successful horror templates is a great starting point for coming up with an idea that gets buyers salivating.

AIR
Genre: Sports Drama
Domestic: 52 million
Worldwide: 90 million

Lesson: Yet another savvy business idea is to mine true sports stories for concepts. They usually do well. Weirdly, they all do well on the Black List (I guess because all those assistants are big sports fans), further improving the chances of them getting purchased. Air was a departure from the usual formula, though, since it was less about the on-field stuff and more about what happens behind the curtain. The hack the writers are using here is that they know a lot of actors love sports. And they know those same actors are either too old or not in good enough shape to play professional athletes. But anybody can play a schlub in a suit. If you make that schlub talk a lot, you’re going to find a big actor who wants to play him.  That big actor is the start of a flashy package that’s going to make sure your movie gets a big marketing push.

COCAINE BEAR
Genre: Comedy/Horror
Domestic: 64 million
Worldwide: 87 million

Lesson: Cocaine Bear is an example of a low-key growing trend in concept creation: viral concepts. These are concepts that either already went viral on social media (“Zola”) or the ideas are so wacky, the producers are banking on the fact that the movie itself will go viral, which achieves that all-important awareness, and also saves some money on the back end of the marketing budget. That was the plan here, although it’s difficult to tell if it was successful or not. Cocaine Bear landed in that monetary zone where you can’t call it a success or a failure. Which means even these newer flashier ways to construct concepts are susceptible to the same roll of the roulette wheel that movies have had to deal with since day 1 of the business: You never know what’s going to click with audiences.

THE POPE’S EXORCIST
Genre: Horror
Domestic: 20 million
Worldwide: 74 million

Lesson: This was based on a book but I included it because it’s still an idea any writer could’ve come up with. You don’t even need the book to write about it, since it’s based on a real person.  One of the most dependable horror specs you can write is an exorcist script. If I had any interest in exorcisms, I would be writing one of these every month. How dependable is the genre? Well, the script doesn’t really have a hook. I guess it’s kind of cool that the exorcist works directly for the Pope. But it’s not like the Pope is possessed. That would be a hook. Our exorcist still exorcises normal people, like every other exorcist. In other words, even without a hook, this movie made 74 million worldwide, and that’s all because of one word: EXORCIST.

65
Genre: Sci-fi
Domestic: 32 million
Worldwide: 60 million

Lesson: When people think of this film, they think, “Loser.” But it’s actually a winner. Every movie on this list is a winner because it’s an original idea that got made. Which is what most of you are trying to accomplish. 65 was actually a good idea. A couple of people crash land on earth during the dinosaur era just hours before the famous dinosaur-destroying asteroid arrives. Unfortunately, it made a couple of critical creative mistakes that tanked its RT score (main characters were, inexplicably, aliens and the tone was too dour). Since original movies are more dependent on good reviews than studio-backed mega-franchises, 65 didn’t survive its weak critical reception. To really take advantage of mid-budget sci-fi, you have to keep things here on earth and in the present. District 9, Arrival, and the upcoming The Creator. I still contend that 65 was a cool idea. But mass audiences tend not to like this story setup for some reason (they rejected “After Earth” as well).

PLANE
Genre: Action/Thriller
Domestic: 32 million
Worldwide: 52 million

Lesson: The great thing about these movies is that they always get made. These Thriller-Action B-movies might as well be printed on the same documents that authorize the financing transactions for production because that’s how dependable they are. With that said, you are going after the same group of actors here (Gerard Butler, Liam Neeson, Jason Statham, etc.) and it DOES help if you can give them anything unique. It’s very common for them to say, “I already played this part.” It’s why Statham got so excited to do The Beekeper. Sure, in the end, money talks. Neeson has done the same role for the last 20 movies. But what I’m saying is, you gain yourself a little bit of an edge if you not only come to the actor with an offer, but come to them with an offer and a role they haven’t gotten to play yet. Gerard Butler had not played a pilot yet. And that was all he needed.

MISSING
Genre: Thriller
Domestic: 32 million
Worldwide: 49 million

Lesson: Timur Bekmambetov is THE GUY for these computer-based movies. I know a writer who’s writing one for him right now. And since they’re so cheap to make, I see Bekmambetov’s production company continuing to spit them out until they squeeze every dollar out of the sub-genre. Just make sure that you keep the story moving, which Missing does an AMAZING job of. It isn’t just a thriller in name. It’s thrills every second. Remember that the main character is sitting down the whole movie (or most of it). Which is why you want the story to have extreme urgency and stakes. Cause if someone is sitting down the whole movie in front of a computer and their goal is weak and they have as long as they want to achieve that goal? That’s a script disaster waiting to happen.

80 FOR BRADY
Genre: Comedy
Domestic: 40 million
Worldwide: 40 million

Lesson: It may not be my thing. It’s probably not your thing either. But the 65+ female demographic has been known to come out for these movies. The formula right now is comedy + several older women. But that could change and be centered around 2 older women, or even 1, if she’s interesting enough. If you have a really good comedy idea for the older female demographic, it may be worth writing it just because this is one of the least competitive sub-genres out there. Very few writers are writing them. So if you had something good, you could sell a script.

RENFIELD
Genre: Comedy/Horror
Domestic: 17 million
Worldwide: 25 million

Lesson: What I’ve found with horror comedies is that there’s a segment of writers who love to write them and a segment of readers who love to read them. But when you get to the actual theater, not a lot of people like to come to them. The target demo for this genre combo is usually people bored at the end of the weekend who just want to throw on something mindless. Which is why this movie bombed.  Plus, I think it was too weird. The comedy angle was odd – that Dracula’s assistant had powers of his own. It didn’t really make sense. That’s script suicide right there – when your main character’s unclear.

THE COVENANT
Genre: War/Action
Domestic: 16 million
Worldwide: 18 million

Lesson: These movies tend to play well to conservative audiences. This one was about a guy carrying another guy across the battlefield for a long distance. But it’s a tough genre to hit the bullseye with. American Sniper showed what was possible at the box office. Lone Survivor did well. Hacksaw Ridge did solid. So you would think this would’ve done better. What was the difference? Out of these four films, only The Covenant was not based on a true story. The thing with these conservative-leaning war stories is that the Rust Belt idolizes these soldiers. They’ve been celebrating them long before anyone made a movie about them. You could say that they’re conservative IP. So I think that’s the trick if you’re going to write one of these. Making it completely fiction, especially with such a weak hook (carrying a guy across a battlefield), was the stake in this movie’s box office heart.

Get a Script Consultation With Carson for $50 OFF! – In addition to logline consultations (just $25!), I do full screenplay consultations, pilot script consultations, outline consultations, first act consultations. Anything you need help with, I can help! If you mention this article anytime this week, I will give you 50 dollars off a feature or pilot consultation. :). E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com

Genre: True Story
Premise: The true story of the rise and fall of the Blackberry, a handheld internet device that become a phenomenon, only to get wiped out by the biggest company in the world.
About: Blackberry is the surprise movie of the year so far. It’s the little film that could. Glen Howerton, who’s famously played Dennis for the last 15 seasons on It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, has transformed himself for the opportunity to play Jim Balsillie, a part that is getting him tons of acclaim. Matthew Miller, who wrote the script for director Matt Johnson, didn’t have a single produced credit to his name until now.
Writers: Matt Johnson and Matthew Miller (based on the book by Jacquie McNish and Sean Silcoff)
Details: 2 hours long

I know, I know.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-verse just made all this money. Which means it’s the movie I *should* be reviewing today. I give Spider-verse all the props in the world. The first movie made 35 million opening weekend. This one made 120 million. That’s got to be the biggest percentage increase in box office sequel history.

But there’s another verse out there. A verse full of villains and heroes. A verse that tells one of the most classic tales in our history. If you squint, this verse isn’t that much different from Marvel or DC. I’m talking…….. about the Blackberry verse.

I kept hearing great things about this movie. It got great reviews. Great acting performances. Everyone’s tweeting about it.

But let me tell you why I’m really reviewing it. I’m reviewing it because every movie that gets made in Hollywood goes through a process. At the beginning, the script/project gets sent around town to all the A-listers. The biggest actors. The biggest directors. The hope is that you get one of those perfect A-list packages and now you’re really off to the races. You’ve got tons of buzz and hype behind you. And money! Lots and lots of money.

Unfortunately, most scripts don’t ever get the A-listers. And when they don’t get them, they go for the B-listers. The B-listers are still big time. Uncharted, with Holland, Wahlberg, and Rubin Fleischer directing? That was a B-Team. Movie did okay.

If you don’t get the B-Team, you can still end up with a solid movie via the C-Team. The stuff Gerard Butler is in, like Plane? That’s C-Team. And wherever you land, the corresponding amount of money you get, which crews you get, how many days you get to shoot – all of that ties back to who you can secure when you first go out with your project.

Sadly, the quality of your movie is linked to where you finish on that ladder. Your movie’s fate is determined before you shoot a minute of film.

So when a movie like Blackberry comes along and throws this equation back in the industry’s face – I’ll always celebrate that. Blackberry was working with the F-team. I guarantee the producers of this project were not setting up face time meetings at Shutters on the Beach in Santa Monica with Jay Burachel begging him to be in their movie. Ditto Glenn Howerton. I would go so far as to say they were probably their 30th-40th choices.

And yet, despite that, they still made an awesome movie. How awesome? You know how I was busting Air’s chops a few weeks ago because of how lifeless the directing was? We were in small offices on phone calls the entire movie? Blackberry operates in the exact same business world deal-making space, had 1/20th the budget that Air, and managed to look a hundred times bigger than that movie. It really is amazing what a difference directing makes.

If you don’t know the Blackberry story, this tiny company, Research in Motion, created by a couple of computer nerds, Mike Lazaridis and Doug Fregin, came up with the first handheld texting/e-mail device. With the help of hothead outsider, Jim Balsillie, to run the business, they quickly became the makers of the coolest gadget in the business world, the Blackberry.

The movie focuses on the complex relationship between Mike, who’s great with engineering but terrible with people, and Jim, who’s terrible with engineering and also terrible with people. But Jim gets things done. He’s the guy who doesn’t care if you like him. He’s a force that is determined to take whatever business he’s running to the top.

Blackberry had a meteoric rise because of two things. One, everyone was addicted to the fun little click-y keyboard that you got to send texts back and forth with. And two, they didn’t have any competition. They were the first company able to capitalize on handheld wireless data and no one else was even close.

Of course, we all know what happened next. Apple showed up. And Blackberry made a big bet on the fact that nobody would want to give up their “crackberry” keyboard for some screen that you lifelessly typed on. The final act of “Blackberry” shows the company desperately trying to adjust to this new competitor even though they all know, deep down, that their product is dunzos.

You guys know I’m no fan of true stories and biopics.

With that said, the rise and fall of a person or a company is a very strong engine to write a story with. Because think about it. We all love to see the rise of something. It’s exciting to see someone get to the top, especially if we know beforehand that they do get to the top. Cause we have that fore-knowledge that the characters don’t. And we’re excited for them to reach the mountain top we’re waiting on.

And then, we all love a train crash as well. We all love the sinking of the Titanic. We can’t wait to see it. It’s part of our nature as human beings. So we like *that* part of the story as well – the fall.

In general, every story should be either rising or falling. That’s what keeps the story in motion. Where you run into trouble is if you’re staying neutral. You can stay neutral in a story for a little while. But not for long. The viewer wants to either start rising again or falling again. They need to be in motion.

So, plot-wise, this script was good to go.

The only thing left to make a great movie was characters. Glen Howerton’s, Jim, was fun to watch. He was, himself, an engine. He demanded that the story move. So we always enjoyed being in scenes with him because we knew he was going to be pushing other people to do things. Which results in conflict, which results in drama, which results in entertainment.

Plus, Howerton just had so much fun with the role. He knew this was his one shot at becoming a serious actor. And he took advantage of it. I don’t know if this movie has the financial backing to put together an Oscar campaign for Glen. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he got nominated.

The only downside of Jim is that Mike and Doug couldn’t possibly live up to him. Mike was so internal. He was so frustrated and could never quite get the right words out. In a way, that made me frustrated whenever he came onscreen. I wasn’t enjoying his character so much as enduring it.

And while Matt Johnson, who played Doug, exhibited the single greatest clueless expression I’ve ever seen in a film, that’s all he brought to the table. To be honest, it felt like an actor who wasn’t quite ready for this big of a role.

With that being said, Blackberry is such a win for movies. Like I said, it’s a feel good story of a movie that nobody was supposed to hear about. For it to be getting these great reviews and all this buzz, it’s just cool to see.

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

What I learned: If you’re going to write a true story or biopic, something with a clear rise and fall will do a lot of the work for you as a storyteller. You’ll always be in motion. Your only challenge will be making sure all the characters are compelling to watch. If you have that combo, your script will be unstoppable.

“I want the truth!”

Every time I put the month’s logline winners up for Logline Showdown, I always get a dozen comments that amount to, “THIS IS THE BEST YOU HAVE????” I get it. It’s the internet. We want perfection. We want the posts on our terms. I do it as well on other sites.

But, just so you have more context, I want you to see the loglines that aren’t making it so you can better appreciate the ones that do. Because it’s hard to come up with a good concept and it’s hard to write a good logline. I think Scott said this – just being able to come up with a sentence that sounds normal is difficult. Much less one that effortlessly conveys a compelling movie idea.

For those interested, we do a Logline Showdown every month. Send in your title, genre, and logline. I pick the five best. You guys vote for your favorite. The logline that gets the most votes gets a script review the following week. We’ve found several good scripts already. Let’s find some more! Here are the details for the next showdown…

JUNE LOGLINE SHOWDOWN!

When: June 23rd
Deadline: June 22nd, 10pm Pacific Time
Where: e-mail all submissions to carsonreeves3@gmail.com
What: include title, genre, and logline

If you’re struggling with your loglines, you can always get a logline consultation from me. They’re 25 bucks. E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com and I’ll have feedback to you within 24 hours.

Okay, let’s take a look at some of the loglines that didn’t make it into the showdown and why. Actually, none of these loglines are bad. But they were all missing something. Let’s find out what those somethings were.

Title: Unwind
Genre: Dark Comedy/Mystery
Logline: Desperate for new material after her editor rejects her article, a high school journalist teams up with her ex-boyfriend to uncover a school conspiracy when she discovers a photo of a paraplegic kid standing on two legs.

Analysis: The first thought that went through my head when I finished reading this logline was, “So what?” The stakes don’t feel very high. Why do I care about a random kid who may have been faking his paraplegic-ness? In the writer’s defense, it’s a comedy. And the stakes for comedy scripts don’t have to be as high. But there’s something underwhelming about this mystery that’s preventing me from feeling that excitement I need in order to open a script. That’s not to say the script would be bad. If the writer’s got a really witty and sardonic voice, the script could work. But I’m just going off the logline and the logline isn’t giving me a big enough reason to care.  This is one of those scripts that I’d read if someone else told me it was great.  But it’s not a script that wins me over on the logline alone.  Which is a good lesson for every screenwriter trying to write a spec screenplay.  Try to win us over with your concept alone.  It shouldn’t need any extra convincing.

Title: Kill and Make-up
Genre: Satire
Logline: Down on her luck and bearing the weight of her world, flight attendant Amanda meets Bailey, a solipsistic psychopathic serial killer, who might just be her key to happiness.

Breakdown: Fun title. Nice play on words. And the story is kind of intriguing. A love story with a serial killer. There’s some nice irony there. But it feels like it’s missing that element to put it over the top. Like the logline from a couple of months ago where the serial killer was done killing but then went to the engagement party of her rich fiancé and had to do everything within her power not to kill his insufferable family. There was more of a story there, more of a plot. This logline is an idea. “I fell in love with a serial killer.” But where’s the plot? What’s the end goal? Finally, I’ve included a lot of serial killer loglines on the Logline Showdown this year. And I just didn’t want to include another one so soon. That’s a tough reality about the industry. Sometimes you have a good idea but the producers you send the idea to just made a movie like that or they just started developing a movie like that. Your logline could just be bad timing. Which is one of many reasons not to take rejection personally.

Title: Influence
Genre: Horror/Comedy
Logline: A group of influencers stranded at the shoddy island resort they’ve been promoting is terrorized by a manipulative entity that wants to harness their immense reach.

Breakdown: There’s not enough meat on the bone here. We’ve got a group of influencers. They’re stuck together in some scary situation. This is a VERY COMMON setup right now. Lots of writers are starting with a similar premise to this. Which means you have to differentiate your idea somehow. An entity that “wants to harness their immense reach” is not enough of a differentiation. To be honest, I don’t know want that means. It’s not specific enough. A logline needs to place an image in the reader’s head. When you are vague, you are doing the opposite of that. We can’t imagine anything. And if we’re not imagining the movie, we’re not going to request your script. I would rewrite the second half of this logline and BE SPECIFIC.

Title: Wicked Morning Star
Genre: Horror
Logline: In 1986, two ambitious girls obsessed with Dungeons & Dragons, heavy metal, and Lucifer ritually sacrifice a wealthy classmate and attempt to conceal the crime as their friends gather for his birthday party in the basement where they’ve hidden his body.

Breakdown: When I read this logline, I have a couple of concerns. One, you’re asking us to root for two people who killed someone. There is a chance, of course, that you’ve made them sympathetic and the victim unsympathetic, so that we’re okay with the killing. But that’s the thing about loglines. There is no context. We don’t know for sure. Going off just the logline, I don’t want to give these killers my time. The other issue is that the idea feels small. I’m imagining this small basement, since all basements are small. I guess they’ve put him in a trunk or something. And the appeal of the story is, “Will someone find out?” But I only see that trick working for a few scenes, 30 pages at most. We’re not going to be on the edge of our seats on page 75, still wondering if Lucy is going to look inside that trunk and find the body. The gimmick will be up by then. So those two issues are the reason I didn’t feature this logline.

Title: The Men in White
Genre: Supernatural Thriller/Action
Logline: When Mikey McKay, a kind but dimwitted drug dealer, dies searching for his missing brother, the two mysterious Men in White appear to protect Mikey from the dangers of purgatory and guide him to the portal to Heaven before his soul disappears forever.

Breakdown: You don’t usually want to include character names in loglines. It tends to be a rookie move. Which means the reader’s going to assume you’re a beginner writer, which means they’ll be less likely to request your script. The exception is when your hero’s name is in the title (Forrest Gump, Jerry Maguire). But you should stay away from this if possible. From there, it’s too standard of a premise. I get pitched a lot of concepts where somebody dies and they have to do something before they can get to heaven. The more original the plot is between the death and getting to heaven, the more likely I am to request the script. This seems like a vanilla version of that journey. He has to avoid bad ghosty people and get to heaven. Feels like we’re missing that sexy “strange attractor” that amps an idea like this up.

Title: No Body Recovered
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Logline: After escaping a brutal police raid on his unhoused community, a wounded man flees downriver in search of his missing dog; desperate for survival, he accepts help from a local bowfisherman who unveils a sinister plan — remove the unhoused from his river one by one.

Breakdown: There may be something to this idea but the fact that I had to read the logline four times before I mostly understood it is a problem. First of all, “unhoused” is a weird word. I was annoyed that I had to look it up. I suppose it’s the latest politically correct way to refer to homeless people. But even if you get past that, this missing dog enters the equation out of nowhere. So I guess this is a “look for your dog” movie now? Then, also out of nowhere, a bow fisherman appears. That seems like a random character type to be introduced into this story. And then the bow fisherman wants to kill all the homeless people, I think? Or just scare them off? It’s a little unclear. But then he’s also going to help our hero find his dog? Even though he hates that our hero is homeless? Or does he not know he’s homeless and that’s why he agrees to help him? Or are you saying that, that’s the inciting incident of the story, in which case, they’re now mortal enemies? Our hero will look for his dog while the bow fisherman tries to hunt him? As you can see, the fact that there’s so much going on here makes it difficult to identify what’s happening. And the second a reader is unclear what the story is, THEY’RE OUT. They don’t give you a second chance. Cause the way they see it is: If you can’t be clear in one sentence, why would I expect you to write a clear 20,000 word story?

Title: 21 Shots
Genre: Slasher Comedy
Logline: On the eve of her sister’s wedding, a woman takes 21 shots to ring in her 21st birthday. When she wakes to a room full of dead friends, she must retrace her 21 shots to figure out the killer before the wedding begins… or the killer finds her.

Breakdown: Another confusing logline. I understood the story up to the point where she takes 21 shots to ring in her 21st birthday. So far so good. She then wakes up to a room full of dead friends. Okay, a mystery. It seems a little excessive but I’m still giving the logline a chance. Things fall apart with this segment: “she must retrace her 21 shots to figure out the killer.” How does one retrace 21 separate shots? “Hmm, I took my first shot over at the bed here. Then I took my second by the piano. Then my third in the bathroom.” Wouldn’t you be done with that investigation after five minutes?  Also, how is that going to help her solve the mystery? If you get past that, you run into the logline’s biggest problem: who cares about making it to the wedding WHEN ALL YOUR FRIENDS ARE DEAD!!!!???? I’m pretty sure getting to the wedding is the least of your worries at that point. Not to mention, instead of figuring out where your 17th shot was, why not just call the cops? There are just too many questions that pop up with this logline.

Title: The Girl Who Lived
Genre: horror
Logline: A young woman must survive a night of horrific attacks both by the living and the dead when she sets out to discover why she was the lone survivor of a mysterious plane crash as a child.

Breakdown: Tal complains a lot that his loglines don’t get picked so I thought I’d extend him the courtesy of explaining why I didn’t pick his latest submission. To start, why isn’t “horror” capitalized?  You want to put your best foot forward.  It’s not a dealbreaker but it implies you’re not taking the submission seriously – that you’re rushing through it.   — Like a lot of Tal’s loglines, this sort of feels like a movie but, at least for me, I’m having trouble connecting the first part with the second part. She’s going to finally solve the mystery of being the only survivor of a plane crash. So as soon as she looks into that, random living and dead people start attacking her? I don’t get it. The fact that it’s not one or the other (dead or alive) scatters the focus of the idea, weakening its impact. If it was just ghosts that went after her – preferably dead passengers she remembers from the flight – at least then there’s a logical connection between the first part of the logline and the second. But trying to solve a plane crash mystery and having dead and alive people all try to kill you – it’s just not a very eloquent idea. It feels messy. Blunt. Quickly cobbled together without any self-scrutiny. I commend Tal for putting these elements in his idea that are high concept and sexy (plane crash, ghosts). But neither of those elements connect to one another in a harmonious way, at least from how they’re presented in the logline.

Title: Parousia
Genre: Psychological Horror
Logline: An apprehensive pregnant couple, still haunted by a past miscarriage at the hands of a doctor, go to a remote midwifery for the perfect birth but strange occurrences and sinister undertones soon signal the experience may not be so idyllic after all.

Breakdown: This is a good example of an intriguing logline that falls apart in the home stretch. I see this ALL THE TIME. You get to the part of the logline that may actually seal the deal. Then you shroud it in a fog of mystery. I get why this happens. You’re thinking: “I must create mystery!”  But that’s one of the more common misconceptions about loglines – that you want to be mysterious. You actually want to tell the reader exactly what they’re going to get. You do this because reading a script is a business proposition. People will take the time to read your script because they think it might make them money. It’s not an enjoyment proposition, like paying for a ticket to go see a movie. That’s a different type of pitch and, therefore, one where mystery can be strategically infused.  Know the difference!

Title: Her Deafening Silence
Genre: Thriller
Logline: After a violent attack leaves her with a debilitating hearing disorder, a reclusive assault survivor fights to maintain her sanity as visions of her assailant and a distant, mysterious scream threaten her isolated existence.

Breakdown: You’re not giving us a movie here. You’re giving us a short film. I’m not saying that your script doesn’t have a full movie in it. But this logline? This logline implies a story that is, at most, 15 minutes long. A deaf person starts hearing a scream in the distance. Where’s the plot? Is it that the scream keeps getting louder? Closer? Okay. But screams happen all the time in horror movies. That’s not big enough to build an entire story around. I get the sense that there’s more that happens in this script. But then that needs to be in the logline. We need to be able to see the plot of the movie in order to gauge whether it’s something we’d be interested in.

Get a Script Consultation With Carson for $100 OFF! – In addition to logline consultations, I do full screenplay consultations, pilot script consultations, outline consultations, first act consultations. Anything you need help with, I can help! If you mention this article, I will give 100 dollars off a feature or pilot consultation to the first four people who e-mail me. :). E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com