The Batman, Halloween Kills, The Last Duel, and Peacemaker all come splashing down into the Mish-Mash Monday pool today!

People! This Thursday is the Halloween Horror Showdown deadline. If you have a horror script, make sure to enter it. It’s absolutely free and you can find out how to submit HERE. The winner will get a big Friday review next week. Don’t you dare miss out on this opportunity.

We had two major releases this weekend at the box office. The first was the Halloween sequel, Halloween Kills. That film finished with a surprising 50 million dollars at the box office, despite being available for free on the Peacock streaming service.

There’s been a lot of talk in the industry about how “simul-releases” doom a film’s box office, with the industry pointing to the simul-release of hopeful hit but ultimate dud, “The Suicide Squad” as an example. Meanwhile, movies like Shang-Chi and Venom, which only opened in theaters, do well. Throwing a wrench into that theory is that last week’s opening of Bond, which was a theaters-only release, did poorly.

The newest Halloween movie further throws that theory into flux, pulling in 50 million bucks for the weekend, which was only 5 million less than No Time To Die. To put that in perspective, “Die” cost 300 million to produce while “Kills” cost 20 million. Of course, Halloween Kills will not do anything close to No Time To Die’s international numbers. But it may actually end up turning a bigger profit than Bond, which reportedly needs to hit 800 million in revenue before it starts making money. And that’s a generous number. More realistically, it’s probably a billion.

Another layer to this drama is that Halloween Kills has a dreadfully awful screenplay. And I mean it’s REALLY bad. In retrospect, I probably should’ve given it a “what the hell did I just read?” Most people are confirming this as the film has a fast plummeting 39% Rotten Tomatoes score. But one of the most surefire bets at the box office is the direct sequel to a highly successful horror movie. And, look, it’s a movie called “Halloween Kills” coming out two weeks before Halloween. So people are going to go. I just hate when terrible screenplays are celebrated because it encourages the industry to remain lazy.

The other big release was Ridley Scott’s star-studded period piece, The Last Duel, which maybe should’ve been called The Last Time You’ll Ever See This In Theaters. There were a couple of issues with the project, the first being that period pieces haven’t done well recently, especially when the concept is small, like this one. Period pieces need that big hooky world to hang their hat on (Scott’s 
“Gladiator,” for example) and The Last Duel was a more personal story.

The bigger problem, though, was that the movie looked sad. And who wants to willingly be sad during a pandemic? It’s like, “Hey, Hollywood! I’m already sad! I don’t need you to make it worse.” I believe that when things are going badly in the world, people want happy movies (Shang-Chi). And when things are going well in the world, people are more open to sad movies (Titanic). The Last Duel was a big fat example of bad timing. I also think Adam Driver needs a new agent. He seems to be choosing projects solely based on the director without asking the obvious question of, “Is this a movie people actually want to see?” An actor of his caliber should not be in this many films that have bombed.

Two new big trailers hit the airwaves this weekend thanks to the DC Expo, the big one, of course, being The Batman. This movie looks DARK. And no, I’m not talking about the tone. I’m talking about the cinematography! I can barely see anything. I will say this about the movie. Batman is probably the trickiest property in Hollywood to direct at the moment because you’re coming off the most successful Batman films ever, which means you can’t copy them. However, if you go the opposite route and try to make Batman fun and playful, you look like you’re copying the Marvel format. So what do you do?

Matt Reeves’ solution was to one-down Christopher Nolan. Let’s not just go dark. Let’s go REALLY DARK. Based on how this movie looks, I’d say that was the right decision because the movie doesn’t look like anything else out there. That’s the hardest thing to do in the most over-saturated genre in history – come up with a film that doesn’t look like any other superhero film out there. Matt Reeves has done that.

The only thing I remain skeptical about is Robert Pattinson. It makes me nervous that he barely says anything in the trailer. And when he does say something, it’s usually voice over. That indicates that the director doesn’t love his star’s performance and he’s trying to hide it. I noticed the same thing in Tenet. Pattinson has very few lines in that movie and you get the sense that he, originally, had a much bigger role, which indicates that a large swath of his performance was left on the cutting room floor.

Then again, I may be overthinking this. The trailer could’ve easily been cut that way on purpose. And, look, I’m seeing more good in this trailer than bad. It looks like a cool Batman movie. The biggest thing of all is that it feels fresh. That’s all audiences want. They want something familiar but not too familiar. I really hope this is a good movie!

DC’s other big trailer release was James Gunn’s and John Cena’s “Peacemaker” show for HBO Max. This was quite the, um, trailer. I’m trying to think of a way to be respectful here because I like John Cena a lot. Let’s put it this way. James Gunn is an acquired taste. I think we all know that by now. And I would call this Peacemaker show the most James Gunny thing ever made. So if you love James Gunn, you’re going to love Peacemaker. If you’re like me, however, and approach every James Gunn project on the fence, willing to go one way or the other depending on the execution, you’re probably going to hate this. It just looks… juvenile is the best word to describe it.

It doesn’t help that nobody saw The Suicide Squad. They were expecting that film to be a big hit and for Peacemaker to be a breakout character. But that’s not what happened. You could make the argument that not a single character broke out from that movie. But, by that point, this show was already in the can so what can they do other than promote it like heck and pretend that everybody loved the film?

Next weekend we FINALLY get Dune. This will be a pivotal release for Denis Villeneuve. His big-budget Blade Runner film proved too “adult” for audiences and Dune looks to have gone down a similar path. They did a good job hedging their bets, however, with Chalamat and Zendaya, to pull in the younger crowd. But will that crowd be willing to sit through a 3 hour meditative piece on interplanetary politics? Boy oh boy am I curious to find out.

Now finish up those horror scripts and get them in by Thursday! No more procrastinating!

The story behind Squid Game is almost as compelling as the story in it.

Squid Game is a sensation.

Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s content guy, says that the show is on track to become the most watched piece of entertainment in Netflix’s history.

Full disclosure, I watched the first episode and a half of Squid Game and I didn’t think it was very good. Korean cinema can be kind of goofy, in my opinion, which can sometimes take me out of the story.

There was an early scene, for example, where a business man plays a weird game with our protagonist where he drops an envelope on the floor and if it doesn’t land just right, the other guy gets to hit him. The protagonist proceeds to lose 60 times in a row and the other guy just keeps hitting him afterwards. Quite frankly, I thought it was one of the dumbest scenes I’d ever seen. It yanked me right out of the show and I couldn’t get back into it.

There were some other issues I had as well. Why do the people get to vote to stop the game? That’s lame. It’s so much better if they’re forced to play it. I gave up watching after the people were allowed to quit.

BUT. That does not change the fact that Squid Game is a runaway success. I’ve seen several of you praising it in the comments. And the internet loves it (I recently read that the squid game hash tag has been shared 22 billion times on TikTok, which I guess means everyone in the world has used the hashtag 3 times each). I texted my brother (who has zero interest in Hollywood) to see what he thought and he said, “I haven’t seen it but the world is screaming at me to watch this, so I will.” And that’s the current pull of the show. Everybody knows about it. Everybody is going to check it out if they haven’t already.

But, as was brought to the world’s attention this week, the creator, Hwang Dong-Hyuk, has been pitching the show to Hollywood for ten years and they all told him it wouldn’t work. He was so broke at one point, he had to sell the very laptop he was writing the script on!

So what happened here? Writers love a good “the studios were wrong!” story. But were they wrong? Was this a guaranteed hit that the studios missed?

Let’s dig into that question.

One of the things I’ve found is that if you’re an unknown writer and you have a really unique vision – your story is going to look different than anything else out there – it’s hard to convey that on the page. I remember when Zach Braff was trying to get Garden State made and nobody gave him the time of day because the script was so bad. However, after he made a strong visually unique film, everybody was surprised as to how Garden State could’ve been rejected. Well, it was rejected because there was no way to show everyone what the movie would look like using just words.

Which is clearly what’s happened here. Squid Game is all about the look. The dudes with the weird masks and these ridiculous colorful game sets – the second you see that on Netflix’s home page, you’re intrigued. And if you’re intrigued, you’re going to check it out.

But let’s not pretend like it an obvious hit and everyone who passed on it was dumb. There wasn’t any way to know the show was going to look the way it does. If this had been a graphic novel first, I have no doubt that it would’ve been optioned and made into a movie (or a show). But if he was just pitching this as a script, of course people are going to say no. It’s big, it’s expensive, it’s weird, and the writer is unknown. That’s like a quadro handicap on your screenplay.

The reason I bring this up is because, if you’re a writer trying to break in, having some groundbreaking visual palette for your movie isn’t going to matter one iota in script form. That’s for the directing side of things. It’s why directors will shoot short films as proof-of-concept. But nobody’s going to be able to see that in a screenplay.

Which is why you should be conceiving of ideas that work first ON THE PAGE and then ON THE SCREEN. Not ideas that jump straight to the “on the screen” part. That’s a little confusing so let me parse it out for you. A Quiet Place is a script that works on the page. It’s got clear high-concept rules (you can’t make a sound or you’re dead) and a highly marketable story (horror film, monsters that hunt you, family that’s trying to survive). Cloud Atlas is a script that does not work on the page. You could argue it doesn’t work on screen either. But it definitely looks beautiful. And that’s the lesson here. If your script is highly dependent on how it looks, you shouldn’t be writing that as an unknown screenwriter. Nobody’s going to be able to see what you see (unless you’re a writer-director and shoot a proof-of-concept short).

Where we venture into the gray zone is when we look at Squid Game’s concept. Squid Game has a very high concept pitch. It’s a bunch of poor people playing deadly children’s games to win millions of dollars. Shades of The Running Man and The Hunger Games. To be clear, that *does* work on the page. So I’m not sure why that didn’t sway Hollywood more than it did other than maybe the writer was originally pitching Squid Game as a movie and it didn’t read well as a feature, combined with the fact that he was an unknown, which always makes things more difficult.

Let’s also not forget that, as is the case with every giant hit, there’s a fortuitous aspect to it. Steven Spielberg is Steven Spielberg in large part because when he came out with Jaws, the world was experiencing an overwhelming number of shark attacks. When Hwang Dong-Hyuk first pitched Squid Game ten years ago, we weren’t in the middle of a pandemic that was taxing everyone’s bank accounts. The second the pandemic came along and everyone started losing their jobs, Netflix greenlit Squid Game.

There are a few final writing lessons I can take away from Squid Game. The first is that screenwriting is a marathon. It isn’t a sprint. I can count the number of people who have “made it” within five years of starting screenwriting on two hands. And, in almost all of those cases, it was because that person had a family member in the business. Ten years, as scary as that sounds, is a realistic number when it comes to screenwriting success. That doesn’t mean you have to starve for ten years. You can have a job and pursue screenwriting in the meantime. But try to put 2-3 hours a day into it if you really want to get good.

Next up, high concept remains your best bet for success. Some people may look at Squid Game and say, “Wow, Hollywood is effed up. They rejected this awesome show for ten years.” But another way to look at it is, kudos to Dong-Hyuk for coming up with such a high concept that it could be pitched long enough whereby it never got old. A lot of writers come up with ‘of-the-moment’ ideas and, as soon as the moment is over, their scripts are worthless. A big high concept timeless idea is something you can pitch for years no matter how many times you get rejected.

Finally, write about what’s affecting you RIGHT NOW. That tends to create the most authentic exploration of character. Dong-Hyuk was dirt poor ten years ago. He was just trying to survive. So he came up with an idea that explored the depths a person would go to to become financially stable. I don’t think Dong-Hyuk would be able to write Squid Game today. He’s rich now. He doesn’t feel that same desperation. That same destitution. As much as I love concept, you ultimately have to write characters that the average person connects with. And this is a big part of the equation for doing that. Write characters that are versions of you and what you’re going through right now in your life.

I’m curious what conclusions you’ve drawn from Squid Game’s success. While you write out those comments, maybe, just maybe, I’ll give this show a second chance. :)

Star Trek is Star Wars for geeks. Guardians of the Galaxy is Star Wars for the cool kids. Is Foundation Star Wars for adults?

Genre: Sci-Fi/1 Hour TV Drama
Premise: When the galaxy’s premiere mathematician concludes, via a complex equation only he understands, that it is inevitable the Empire will fall, the leader of the galaxy exiles him to a remote planet and goes about trying to prevent his prediction from coming true.
About: Based on one of the most famous sci-fi novels of all time, the expensive ‘Foundation’ is Apple TV’s official entry into the tentpole TV space (unless you count “See”). Foundation is a major influence on many of the sci-fi works we know today, including Star Wars. George Lucas borrowed some of the Star Wars terminology straight from Foundation, most notably, the ‘Empire,’ but also his obsession with clones. The series is being led by love-him-or-hate-him screenwriter, David S. Goyer (The Dark Knight, Man of Steel), who calls the Foundation show the biggest writing challenge of his life, as the narrative will span thousands of years.
Creators: Josh Friedman and David S. Goyer (original novels by Isaac Asimov)
Details: Pilot episode was about 65 minutes

The only reason I bought the Apple TV+ service was to see this show. Then I found out it wasn’t coming out for another year and a half! So I waited and I waited and I waited and then I waited some more, and FINALLY I got my Foundation.

Meanwhile, I have no idea if anybody else besides me is interested in this show. I think it looks amazing. Star Wars for adults if it nails the execution. Yet I haven’t heard anyone else mention Foundation, which makes me wonder just how many Apple TV subscribers there really are. Or maybe it’s just not as buzzy of a show as I think it is. Let’s find out together.

Foundation is set in the far off future after the entire galaxy has been populated. This galaxy is run by a clone emperor named Brother Day. Brother Day keeps cloning himself so he can rule forever. He actually rules alongside his older clone, who was once in his position, and a younger clone, who will eventually take his position.

Off on a remote planet we meet a brilliant young mathematician named Gaal Dornick. Gaal has been called to the central planet to work alongside the most accomplished mathematician in history, Hari Seldon. After a light-years long flight, she arrives at the capital city, meets Hari, who instantly tells her, “Oh yeah, um, I forgot to tell you. They’re going to arrest you tomorrow.”

Gaal is like, “Excuse me???” Hari explains that in his latest equation, he has predicted the fall of the Empire. It is inevitable and will last millennia. He knows Brother Day won’t like that, so he’ll arrest Hari and anyone working with him. Sure enough, the next day, Gaal is arrested. She is told by the Empire to look at the equation and, regardless of it is right or not, to say it is wrong. That way the entire galaxy doesn’t freak out.

But in a courtroom battle, Gaal confirms Hari’s findings. Brother Day is brother pissed. Hours later, the giant space elevator that doubles as a landing port for all ships coming to the planet, is blown up by two terrorists, and falls onto the planet, killing upwards of 100 million people, seemingly confirming Hari’s prediction.

At the last second, Brother Day has a change of heart and exiles both Gaal and Hari to a remote planet on the outskirts of the galaxy. They are to work on a solution to the Empire’s demise. When they find one, they can come back. And that’s the end of the pilot episode.

One of the issues with tackling stories that have an enormous scope is getting lost in the scope. The writing becomes more about the world building and “showing off” than it does telling a story that actually keeps people entertained.

The first 30 minutes of Foundation operates this way. It’s powerful people in big rooms saying random things about situations we only barely understand. There’s no form to any of it. And, therefore, no function either. It is 30 straight minutes of ‘who the hell cares?’

But then the court room scene comes. This is the scene where Gaal will either lie and say that Hari’s conclusion was incorrect, in which case she’ll go free and live a normal life, or she tells the truth, which is that Hari is right, in which case she’ll likely be killed.

You’ve finally written a compelling scenario. A courtroom scene has form. I understand a courtroom scene. I didn’t understand 1000 people standing in front of Brother Day as he babbled on about the warring factions of the Fifth Segmentia of the Clororo District. That scene has nothing in it that’s dramatically relevant.

A courtroom scene, meanwhile, is not only something I’m familiar with (and therefore I understand what’s happening), but something with consequences. The stakes of the scene are someone’s death. THAT’S how you invest readers. Always remember to create scenarios that a) people understand and b) have consequences.

Another scene that I understood was two terrorists blowing up a significant structure. Terrorism for a cause is something we’ve seen in our lifetimes. That’s why I’m familiar with and understand it. Again, you have to place us inside scenarios that we understand in order for them to have a dramatic effect.

How am I supposed to understand, or care, about two planetary representatives staring at a wall of art? Staring at a painting on a wall while saying random things to each other has no dramatic consequences whatsoever. It’s a banal empty scene. And yet that was typical of the scenes early on in the pilot.

I understand getting exiled to a planet. That makes sense to me. I’ve seen that before. I know that’s happened to leaders throughout time, like Napoleon. So it was a scenario, again, I could participate in.

In setting up this world for the audience, Goyer got lost in the details and forgot to create dramatic scenarios that actually entertained people AS WELL AS informed them. You can’t make that mistake with a pilot. People just don’t have the time in 2021. Do you know how many other shows there are out there? The list is endless. You can’t do anything that makes someone think, even for a second, “I wonder what else is on?” I seriously considered ditching this show 30 minutes in. The only reason I kept watching was because I was going to review it. But I’m sure others, after watching the opening, said, “What is this stuffy boring sci-fi bullshit?”

The courtroom scene and the space elevator destruction ended up saving the pilot but the weak first half sets up some concerning questions about where the series is headed. Is it a good idea to create a show without a single happy character? Without any humor at all? A show needs balance. Or at least a small variation in tone. The tone here is 5th gear super serious at all times. Has there ever been a show like that that’s succeeded? I’m asking honestly.

This brings me back to Friday’s Amateur Showdown winner where I had a similar problem with the script. The family was really serious. The script took a really long time to get going. I think writers continue to use the excuse of, “Well, I had to set up the characters and the story” to justify it being boring.

Don’t do that. Do both. Set up the characters and story WHILE you’re entertaining the audience. It doesn’t have to be Sophie’s choice.

Star Wars is one of the best examples of this. Darth Vader isn’t Brother Day when we meet him, casually strutting around his palace, looking concerned about the state of affairs. He’s too busy relentlessly pursuing the people who stole the Death Star plans. He’s active. We’re meeting a character but we’re also BEING ENTERTAINED while doing so. I honestly believe that the only reason writers don’t do both of these things at the same time is out of laziness. It’s easier to set up rather than set up and entertain.

Despite me sounding like I didn’t like Foundation, I’m still hopeful. I really want this series to work because I think a Star Wars for adults would be awesome. The Mandalorian has shown me that it’s more interested in satisfying the younger fans than the older ones. So it would be cool if I had something targeted towards my demo.

Is this show on anyone’s radar? Am I the only one watching it? Do any of you watch anything on Apple TV? I’m curious because I never hear anyone talk about Apple other than Ted Lasso so I’m wondering if anyone even knows it exists.

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

What I learned: Offer foreknowledge to the reader to create a more compelling scene. There’s a scene in the first half of Foundation where Brother Day visits an older artist (or maybe he’s an art curator – it’s unclear) and starts chatting with him. We gradually get the sense that he’s unhappy with this guy for something that happened recently, although it’s unclear what that something is. Finally, at the end of the conversation, he shoots and kills the man. The scene is a dud because we were given no prior information on who this man was. We had no idea Brother Day was even coming to see him until the scene started. In other words, we didn’t have nearly enough information to actively participate in the scene. We needed the writer to give us more info so that when Brother Day walked into that room, we knew he suspected this guy of something and we knew that he was thinking of killing him. That way, we would’ve felt suspense as well as fear. But when you don’t tell us anything ahead of time, we’re lost in the scene, especially this early on when we don’t know any of the characters or what they’re up to. It was a miscalculation and one of the reasons the first 30 minutes felt like stuffy setup rather than an entertaining show.

These sci-fi submissions did not make the Science Fiction Showdown. Find out why!

One of the most frustrating things that writers go through is sending their scripts out there only to get rejected time and time again, and having no idea why. I had two instances this week where writers e-mailed me and wanted to know what they were doing wrong.

In one instance, a writer said they had sent their script out to half a dozen contests but that it didn’t advance in a single one. What was wrong? The other writer conceded that his concept wasn’t very good but that if I’d read the script, I’d realize how amazing it was. I sympathize with both of these writers. You spend months, sometimes years, working on a script and then nobody seems to care. You feel like you’re doing something wrong but you don’t know what.

Well, I’m going to clear it up for you. There are two areas you have to execute to break into this business and they must be completed in order. One, you must execute the concept (come up with a compelling concept that makes people want to read your script). And two, you must execute the script (write a script that entertains from the first page to the last). Except for rare situations, it doesn’t work when you only execute one of these.

The reason you need to execute the concept first is because it doesn’t matter that your script is genius if nobody wants to read it. A lot of writers turn a blind eye to this reality. They convince themselves that as long as they write a great script, it won’t matter. Well, it does matter because you need to get people to read the thing and they’re not going to read the thing if it sounds boring.

If you pass that test, the hard part begins because, now, you have to keep people entertained for 110 straight pages and even the best writers in the business struggle to do that. Most amateur screenplays I read fall somewhere between “sub-par” and “average.” That won’t do. I’ll say it again. As an amateur writer – someone who isn’t getting the benefit of the doubt – you have to entertain the reader on page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 5, all the way to page 110. You don’t get any pages off.

But again, none of that matters if you don’t get the concept right because people aren’t even going to give you their time if you don’t do that. Look at the concept that won Amateur Showdown last week. “When a photosensitive alien force blacks out the sun, a dysfunctional family must survive together in a perpetually dark world full of predatory creatures, while trying not to lose the only thing that can protect them: the light.” That’s a movie concept right there. You can see that trailer. You can see that movie making money.

I don’t think enough writers think of concepts that way. They come up with something they think is cool and turn a blind eye towards what anyone else thinks of it. To that end, I’m going to go through some of the sci-fi concepts that were submitted to me for Sci-Fi Showdown and take you into my head as to why they didn’t pass the “concept” test. I’m hoping to not only help the writers who sent these in. But to show you, the readers, how people receive ideas and what makes them say yes or no. Let’s take a look…

Title: The Billionaire Battle Royale
Genre: Sci-fi, Action, “Dystopian”
Logline: 2045–in a world that has combated wealth inequality by hosting an annual fight to the death between billionaires, the inner circle of the world’s richest man tamper with the event to ensure he loses.

Analysis: This one falls under a category I occasionally see with concepts which is that it’s presented as a serious story when it sounds like it could be a comedy. I imagine 2045’s version of Elon Musk fighting 2045’s version of Jeff Bezos and there is nothing in that scenario that makes me think I could take it seriously. On top of that, the central conflict isn’t very interesting – one of the teams ensures their guy loses. Feels like you could come up with a way bigger conflict than that. There are shades of The Purge and Hunger Games here that might entice some. Curious what others think of this idea.

Title: Surrogate
Genre: Contained Sci-Fi/Thriller
Logline: To pay for an exhibition, a starving fine art photographer agrees to be a surrogate for a wealthy couple, but confined to a lavish house, her mind and body start to unravel.

Analysis: One of the more common movie concepts I get sent is characters going crazy. What I’ve found is that these scripts are extremely execution-dependent. Coming up with a story where someone gradually loses their mind for 100 pages is a lot harder than you think. In my experience, almost all of these scripts go off the rails, becoming muddy and uninteresting the further the protagonist progresses into crazyville. Also, this logline isn’t doing the concept any favors. It doesn’t tell us WHAT is going on in the house to cause her descent into madness. Which means that the only thing we have to go on is that she’s stuck in a house. That isn’t very compelling to me which is why I didn’t pick this.

Title: Astaroth’s Children
Genre: Sci-Fi/Horror
Logline: When stranded on an abandoned space station, a crew of military freelancers encounter the survivors of a horrific scientific project gone wrong. Unable to contain the effect, an agoraphobic engineer must destroy this threat to humanity’s existence.

Analysis: The reason I passed over this is pretty simple. It sounds like every video game ever. Resident Evil. Doom. Halo. You can’t just repackage the same movie (or game). You gotta give us something different. There wasn’t anything in this concept that made me think I haven’t already seen this story before. That’s something you gotta think about when you’re putting together your logline (preferably before you write the script). Does this sound too much like other movies we’ve seen? If so, you may want to think twice about writing it.

Title: Infiction
Genre: Sci-Fi
Logline: A female con artist is allowed to ply her trade against an alien group in human form to help them grasp humanity’s evolutionary need for fiction.

Analysis: I read this logline several times and struggled to understand it. By the way, this is one of the biggest reasons to get a logline consult. To see if your logline is clear. A female con artist is allowed to ply her trade? Her trade of con-artistry? Or a different trade? “against an alien group in human form” – had to read that several times to understand it. “to help them grasp humanity’s evolutionary need for fiction.” The stakes of the story are that aliens want to know why we write books like Harry Potter? The stakes need to be much higher than that for a movie.

Title: Future Shock
Genre: Sci-Fi Thriller
Logline: New York’s last ‘accountable’ cop has one night to find four prison-escapees fitted with pacemakers designed to kill them if they leave the city.

Analysis: The idea seems to contradict itself. Four people have escaped prison. Presumably, their goal is to flee the city. A cop must stop them from fleeing the city. But why is he needed if they’re all going to blow up the second they try to leave the city anyway? Problem solved, right? Unless this is a movie about saving bad people from dying. But that doesn’t seem to be the writer’s focus. Wouldn’t this work better if one of the prison escapees was the protagonist? Also, don’t put quotes around words unless it’s clear why you’re doing so. I’m not sure why ‘accountable’ needs quotes around it. This may seem like a nitpick, but every single script I’ve read where someone has put quotes around a random word in a logline has been bad.

Title: E-TEN
Genre: High concept/Sci-fi/contained thriller
Logline: An insecure hotel janitor and 5 other guests are held captive in a small library where a mysterious voice tells them to find the perfect political system for humanity under 90 minutes if they don’t want to be gassed to death.  Things get out of control as they soon realize the game is hiding a traitor…and an axe.

Analysis: There’s nothing realistic about this setup. Why would someone pick six random people and tell them that if they don’t solve something that nobody’s been able to solve in 4000 years, they’re all going to die in 90 minutes? Why would you think these people were capable of doing this? And why so dramatic? If coming up with the perfect political system is important to you, wouldn’t you want to give them an adequate amount of time to do so? This concept didn’t make sense to me.

Title: Earthbound
Genre: Sci-fi
Logline: When an inmate in a prison orbiting Neptune finds that she’s pregnant, she begins a desperate attempt to escape and reach Earth, a place she’s only heard rumors about.

Analysis: This is one of those ideas that kind of sounds like a movie. But my first question after reading it was, “Why did you wait until now?” If getting to earth was important to you, then try to get to earth regardless of whether you’re pregnant or not. Now, if what you’re saying is that she needs to get to earth because they’re going to terminate her baby the second they realize she’s pregnant? Or if she knows the only chance her child has if she raises it on earth, well then that needs to be included in the logline. And the fact that it isn’t included in favor of the vague, “a place she’s only heard rumors about,” indicates to me someone who hasn’t written enough to know how to craft an effective logline. I know every writer hates writing loglines because of this very reason. What do you choose to include or not include? But the thing about loglines is that if you stay in the game long enough, you figure out how to write them effectively, and so when I read a good logline, I know that’s a writer who’s been at this for awhile and knows what they’re doing. In the past, when I see little mistakes like this, I’ve found that the script reflects those mistakes. It has problems as well. And while “Earthbound” may very well be the exception to the rule, I’ve been burned too many times to take a chance on it.

Title: REMOTE
Genre: Sci-fi Drama
Logline: A dysfunctional family’s devoted android confronts the true nature of his role in humanity’s impending demise.

Analysis: This logline starts out okay. But then it becomes waaaaay too general. We go from a “dysfunctional family” (a very contained story) to “humanity’s impeding demise.” Where’s all the stuff in between? Remember, a logline isn’t supposed to tell people the generalities of the story. It’s not a teaser. It’s supposed to tell you the specifics of the story and what’s going to happen. I have no idea what happens in this story (which is the problem) so I can’t accurately fix this logline. But here’s an example of a more specific version: “A dysfunctional family’s devoted android must find and destroy its maker before being updated with the latest software, which will have it turn on and kill its family.” That’s admittedly a dumb idea but do you see how specificity in the plot explanation creates a clearer movie than “confronts the true nature of his role in humanity’s impending demise?” There are actual specific tasks being alluded to, something the reader can visualize.

Obviously, subjectivity plays a role in picking loglines. So my analysis here should not be seen as the end all be all. But this is a pretty accurate breakdown of how your loglines will be received. Do some market research BEFORE you write a script. Send your friends five loglines and ask them to rank them 1-5. What happens when you’ve spent 6 months on a script is that you become emotionally attached to the idea and can’t see it clearly. Whereas when you’re still in the idea stage and several people tell you the idea isn’t good, it’s easier to let it go.

Curious to see what you guys thought of these loglines. Did I overlook any?

=========================================

Are you sending your screenplay out into the world without getting professional feedback? That is dangerous, my friend. I can tell you exactly what they’re going to criticize you for and help you fix those problems ahead of time. I do consultations on everything from loglines ($25) to treatments ($100) to pilots ($399) to features ($499). E-mail me at carsonreeves1@gmail.com with the subject line “CONSULTATION” if you’re interested. Chat soon!

Today’s horror experience has me convinced there should be another Scriptshadow Showdown before the end of the year. Details coming soon!

Genre: Horror
Premise: After losing her baby, a young woman starts to have visions of a mysterious killer massacring his victims.
About: This one comes from James Wan, he of Aquaman fame. Wan is jetsetting back to his horror roots! Malignant only made 5.7 million at the box office this weekend but it’s tough to judge that number since it was available on HBO Max for free. Malignant also decided to keep its twist out of the marketing, which was a brave move, seeing as doing so would’ve, at the very least, doubled its revenue.
Writers: Story by James Wan and Ingrid Bisu. Script by Akela Cooper
Details: 110 minutes

When I pressed play on this movie, my first thought was, “Why the hell is James Wan going back to horror???” He’s directed Fast and Furious movies. He turned a so-so superhero into a billion dollar franchise. As much as I love horror, it is the stepping stone genre to bigger and brighter pastures. It didn’t make sense for someone this big to go back to it.

But after doing a little digging, I learned that James Wan’s wife came up with this idea. My assessment of the project immediately shifted upon hearing this news. Just to be clear, I don’t dislike when people in relationships work together. However, what I’ve learned is that it’s harder for a couple to see an idea clearly when they’re seeing it through the prism of, also, managing their relationship.

Two of the biggest movie stars in the world – Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt – made a movie together and ten people saw it. Branjelina couldn’t see through their own relationship enough to recognize how boring their concept was.

For 90 minutes, while watching Malignant, I felt bad for James Wan. I figured his wife came to him with this idea. He wanted to make her happy so he agreed to direct it. He ends up having to release this unwatchable ridiculous horror movie… Good husband move. Bad artistic move.

But then something magical happens in Malignant. The twist arrives. And that twist is SO GOOD that it becomes the first twist in history to retroactively make the entire previous 90 minutes awesome.

In order to fully understand how this can be, you need to watch this movie. The film can’t be discussed without its twist. So I’m going to be discussing that here. You can read my review first. But you’re going to be robbing yourself of a really fun movie-watching experience.

The ridiculous plot of Malignant goes something like this. There’s this pregnant woman named Madison who was adopted as a child. She loses her baby when her abusive boyfriend beats her up. And now she’s trying to pick up the pieces in a creepy old house she moved into.

Meanwhile, a serial killer (or serial kidnapper) is out there killing and kidnapping people, then taking them back to his Hunchback of Notre Dame clock tower and stringing them up to the ceiling like a spider. I’m not kidding. This really happens.

From there, two of the cheesiest cops you’ve ever encountered in a movie try to find the killer. But they’re so bad at their jobs (not to mention talking to each other in a believable way) that they keep missing the killer. That is until Madison comes to them, with her sister in tow (who’s up for “Most Random Character of the Year”) and says Madison’s been having visions of the killer killing these people! The cops reluctantly bring her into the fold and start to get closer to finding the killer.

Meanwhile, Madison’s sister heads off to learn more about her adopted sister. She’s only recently found out Madison was adopted. This leads her to a psychiatric hospital and an old video tape of who her sister really is. And here, my friends, is where the big twist arrives. Spoilers ahead.

Have you ever heard about those people who have rare disfigurements where they have, like, some teeth and a nose partially growing out of their neck? Well, it turns out Madison had the most extreme version of this disfigurement. An entire second person was growing out of her back. And this disfigured thing had its own personality and everything.

So the hospital eventually had to cut the thing out. But, the only way they could do that was to shove the remainder of the thing’s face back into Madison’s skull. This “thing,” who calls himself “Gabriel,” has taken over her mind and is the actual serial killer. But it’s not just that. Since this thing grew out of her back, it’s learned to readjust Madison’s muscular-skeletal alignment and walk around backwards, resulting in some legitimately creepy offbeat physicality.

Madison finally recognizes that this thing has been taking over her body and fights back. But Gabriel isn’t letting the body go that easily. Only one of them will win out. Who will it be???

I don’t know how Malignant did it.

The second that image arrives on screen – where we see old footage of Madison, as a little girl, with this secondary monster thing growing out of her back – everything about the movie changed in an instant. It goes from stupid and nonsensical to “holy shit, holy shit, holy shit.” There’s this funny shot of the sister watching the video, horrified, that’s so over-acted, it’s ridiculous. And yet you’re reacting the exact same way she is.

But the genius of Malignant is that it doesn’t end with that shot. There are a lot of movie twists that don’t have legs. This one has ‘deadlift a thousand pounds’ legs. Because, while we’re watching this horrifying old video tape, we cut to Madison, who’s in jail with a bunch of women who are bullying her, and she turns around and opens up the back of her skull, allowing “Gabriel” to peek out, and she/Gabriel starts slaughtering everyone.

But not facing them. She kills them all backwards because Gabriel can only see out of the back of her head. This means that Madison’s bones need to twist and crack in a certain way so that they’re usable behind her. And that leads to an utterly unique fighting style that you’ve never seen before.

Why am I making a big deal out of this? Well, every horror movie these days either does the upside-down creepy crab-walk thing. Or they turn scary people backwards. But nobody ever comes up with a reason for why these people are backwards. It’s lazy writing.

The fact that these three figured out a way to not only have it make sense that the entity walked backwards, but then asked the question, how would something like this operate? And then built an entire backwards fighting style around it? – it was awesome. There’s no other word for it. I love when writers DO THE WORK and figure out why things are happening instead of throwing stuff onscreen with only a vague sense of how they work. They really thought about this character.

One of the creepiest images I’ve seen in a long time is when Gabriel takes over the body, Madison’s mind goes dead. So he’s running around, killing everyone, and, occasionally, we’ll spin around to see Madison’s face, which is in a dead stasis state. The fact that she’s doing these horrible things and is helplessly along for the ride was creepy as hell.

So how does it make the previous 90 minutes better?

Because once you realize how absurd this idea is, it allows you to not take everything so seriously. Any movie that ends with a functioning human tumor shouldn’t result in you getting mad because the cop character is boring. When you watch it a second time – which I plan to – you just laugh your ass off at the fact that this cop is such a tool.

Leading up to the movie, I kept hearing this word being bandied about – “bonkers.” Bonkers can either be a good thing or a bad thing. Sometimes people use the word for a movie that falls apart so spectacularly that they want to validate spending two hours on it so they say it was “BONKERS!” But Malignant really is bonkers. It’s so out there. It’s so weird. The movie is all over the place. I mean at one point they randomly show you that underneath the city is a second dead city that this city was built on top of. And then they just keep going on with the movie and never mention it again. It’s so silly and so stupid and so random. But I dare anyone to watch it and not be riveted by the third act.

The confusing thing is that so many of these horror movies start strong and fall apart. But this movie somehow does the opposite. And if there’s a preference between the two, that’s the one you want to use. You want start weak then finish with a bang. I mean, you want to do both, of course. But there’s nothing like the feeling of a movie that ends on a high. And WOW did this leave on a high. James Wan and his wife are geniuses!

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

What I learned: Where you place your big twist has a major effect on the third act. You can put it late in the third act, like The Sixth Sense does, and just allow people to finish on that adrenaline high. Or you can put it at the beginning of the third act and use the reveal to drive those last 25 minutes, like Malignant does. Once we learn she’s the killer and has this tumor thing controlling her, we watch her become this killing machine all the way up until the final scene. Every movie is different so you should assess this tip on a case-by-case basis, but I like the ‘beginning of the third act’ twist a lot because you get to stay with the twist (and play with the twist) longer.