Is Karma the next Matrix, the next Wanted, or the next Assassins Creed?

Genre: Action/Supernatural
Premise: After an aimless woman wakes up from a short coma, she begins exhibiting special abilities.
About: David Guggenheim is one of those writers who experienced the screenwriting dream. It’s one thing to sell a script. A lot of writers have done that. But to get a script made into a movie is a rare thing. When Guggenheim sold his first script, Safe House, it just happened to be exactly what Universal Studios was looking to make at the time. So they fast-tracked it, and 8 months after Guggenheim sold his screenplay, his film was being made. That’s insane. And the thing is, when you get a produced credit from one of the big studios, you’re set for the next decade at least. And probably for life. Because writers who get stuff made are highly coveted. People think if they’ve done it before, they can do it again. So you’re going to keep getting work. Guggeneheim would eventually parlay his success into the show, Designated Survivor. On this one, he’s partnering with super-producer, Simon Kinberg.
Writer: David Guggenheim
Details: 128 pages

Can we get J Law back on top?

It’s the first spec sale of the year!

And if it’s going to be the first, it’s gotta be big! Big concept. Big page count. Big rating on Scriptshadow, though? Let’s find out.

Rachel is a 30 year old grade-school teacher who’s sleepwalking through life. It’s not that she isn’t motivated. But she has no direction. Her one love – painting – is something she happens to be terrible at. Her younger sister thinks she’s dying of boredom and wants Rachel to move to Chicago with her.

Meanwhile, we get a look at some Indiana Jones motherf#$%#r running through caves and throwing ancient daggers at people. This is Boone. Boone is a force to be reckoned with, according to Aegis International, a private security company that has dedicated all its resources to capturing Boone, something it’s been unable to do.

But that’s about to change. One day Rachel gets blindsided by a car, then a few days later wakes up in the hospital just as the doctor is trying to decide what to do with her. Rachel makes a suggestion, citing, word for word, an operating procedure from a 1915 English medical journal. Huh? How did she know that?

But that’s not all Rachel knows. A couple of days later, in the elevator, she has a fluent conversation in Arabic. But Rachel doesn’t know Arabic. Freaked out, Rachel heads home, only to have Aegis CEO John Gartner burst into her apartment with a team of men. He explains that she needs to come with them now! A minute later, a car BARRELS THROUGH THE WALL. It’s Boone! Who starts shooting at Rachel. Chaos ensues and Rachel flees!

John finds Rachel later and explains to her that she’s special. And if she wants to find out how special, she’ll come with him. He flies her to Aegis in France, where they begin the training sessions! You’re a “past-lifer” he explains to her. Someone with the ability to recall your past lives. This means that any skill anyone in your past lives had, you can obtain. “How?” She asks.

“Follow me.”


Rachel is placed in the “womb,” which allows her to be guided through an advanced form of regression therapy. Here, she can go directly into her past lives. And with every life she experiences, she retains their skills. Magician, samurai warrior, pianist, chess prodigy, you name it. Get in my way and I’ll check-mate yo a$$. Most past-lifers can only access up to 15 of their past lives. But Rachel is special. She completes 15 in her first day!

A newly energized Rachel is now ready to take on her nemesis – Boone. Aegis locates Boone hiding in Germany. So off they go. Oh, but if you think you know what’s going on, think again. When Rachel finally comes face-to-face with Boone, he tells her that it’s all a lie. That he isn’t the enemy. John Gartner is! Hmmm, is Boone just trying to protect himself? Or is he telling the truth? I know one thing’s for sure. Ya better protect your queen, b#$%h.

CHESS CHAMPION!

Okay, so let’s talk about this idea because it’s uncanny that I’m reading this after yesterday’s post about the next Amateur Showdown genre. For those who didn’t catch it, the next showdown is for HIGH CONCEPT scripts. “Karma” is the DEFINITION of a high concept. Here, the writer takes an idea that was accessible to everyone – past lives – and sexes it up. What if you could access those post lives? What if you could access the abilities of the people who lived those lives? You would be… superhuman. And just like that, you’ve got a high concept.

A common through-line with high concept ideas is that, when you hear them, you wonder why you didn’t come up with the idea yourself. We’ve all read that news story about the person who wakes up from a coma and all of a sudden starts talking fluently in a language they don’t know. Why didn’t we ask how to turn that into a movie? Guggenheim did, and he’s reaping the benefits.

It’s also an example of how to come up with a high-powered movie ready version of an idea as opposed to a boring variation of that idea. Cloud Atlas was also about past lives. But instead of packaging it in a cool action format, it expanded it out into a three hour drama. Which of these ideas do you think an audience is more interested in?

So Guggenheim gets an A+ in that department.

But I have the same issue with this script that I do with a lot of Guggenheim’s scripts. The execution is too by-the-book. I understand that these Matrixy concepts need to go a certain way. But if I’m predicting things that are happening 60 pages ahead of time, that means you’re not taking any chances. Don’t get me wrong. It’s still fun. But there’s a difference between those summer movies you see once then never watch again and the ones that you keep coming back to. The ones you keep coming back to are the ones where the writers took chances.

The writers and scripts I’m most impressed by are the ones where I’m reading them and thinking, “I could never do that.” I mentioned The Misery Index yesterday, a semi-finalist in my contest. When I read the dialogue in that script, I knew that if you put me in a library with all the greatest writers of all time teaching me how to write for 50 straight years, I still could not be able to write dialogue like that.

Yet, in Karma, I feel like the top 30% of writers here on Scriptshadow could write it just as well as Guggenheim. I’ll give you an example. One of the major components of this screenplay is the past lives. So the writer has to come up with all of Rachel’s past lives she’s lived. Here’s a sampling of what we get… Feudal Japan, Renaissance Painter, World War 2 pilot, Shaolin Monk, a blacksmith, ancient Egypt, Sherpa on Mount Everest, pre-historic man.

In other words, past lives that you could’ve come up with after literally 30 minutes of research. There’s nothing unique here that another writer wouldn’t have come up with. I want to stress that because it’s important. Your job as a writer is to come up with things that the rest of the world and your competition (other writers) couldn’t come up with. Or else why do we need you? If you’re giving us what we already thought of, well, that’s lame. We, the audience, are supposed to be creatively inept compared to you.

So that bothered me.

But mark this one down on the list of why concept is king. Even with its weaknesses, it still works, because the concept is so fun.

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

What I learned: Often times, high concept is about taking a cool ‘what if’ scenario and placing it inside a high octane genre. Writers get this wrong all the time, so pay attention. Past lives is not a high concept idea on its own. It’s just as capable of being low concept in the wrong hands. You could write a movie about a guy who discovers he had a past life as a sheep farmer and becomes inspired to leave the city and live a self-sustainable life in Wyoming. You’ve technically got yourself a past lives script. But is it a good idea? To get the sexier logline, take your ‘what if’ scenario and plug into a bigger flashier genre, like Karma did (supernatural action). Big flashy genres include action, thriller, sci-fi, and horror. Those genres always make the idea feel bigger.

“Lakewood” may be the single most intense script I’ve ever read.

Genre: Thriller
Premise: (me being deliberately vague cause I want you to read the script yourself) A school shooting told in a very unique way.
About: Man, Chris Sparling has come a long way. He started out placing a man in a coffin for 90 minutes. His latest movie, Greenland, is a studio disaster film. Now, he’s going back to his roots. “Lakewood” comes from the same production house, Limelight, that produced Scriptshadow Top 10 2020 film, “Palm Springs.” It stars Naomi Watts.
Writer: Chris Sparling
Details: 97 pages

(Scriptshadow Recommendation: Read this script before you read the plot synopsis! The power of this script is in its exciting plot developments)

The Obvious Angle.

Why is it every screenwriter’s worst enemy?

The Obvious Angle is the movie idea that approaches the subject matter just like everybody else would. If I told you to write a Western, the obvious angle is to have a mysterious no-name dude strut into town and start to stir up trouble. Borrrr-ing.

What makes or breaks a writer on the conceptual level is finding a fresh angle into well-explored subject matter.

And today’s script does that as well as any script I’ve ever read.

42 year-old widow, Amy, is going for her morning jog. This is the only time for Amy to clear her mind and alleviate some stress. Which she’s had a lot of lately. Her husband died two years ago in a car Amy was driving. And her kids – a daughter in elementary school and a son (Noah) in high school – are both still battling depression.

While on the outskirts of her town, Amy observes a strange sight. A couple of cop cars zoom along the road. It’s not something you typically see in this middle class suburb, but she doesn’t think much of it. Instead, she answers a couple of calls from her bougie friend, Heather, and her mom, who’s annoyed with Amy’s lack of communication.

And then Amy sees a couple of other cops zoom by. These with lights and sirens on full blast. This gets her attention. A quarter mile later, Amy receives a text: “THIS IS A CODE RED ALERT FROM THE LAKEWOOD SCHOOL DEPARTMENT. YOU WILL RECEIVE A RECORDED MESSAGE FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT WITH INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS. DO NOT DISREGARD THIS CALL.”

The call comes in and a recording explains that “All Lakewood schools have been placed on lockdown due to an ongoing incident.” Amy immediately calls a teacher at her daughter’s elementary school. The teacher assures her that her daughter is okay. The problem, it turns out, is at the high school. The thought of something horrible happening at the high school is terrifying but luckily for Amy, her son, Noah, stayed home sick today.

At least, that’s what she thought. Amy calls Heather back since Heather has a daughter at the school, and learns that Noah did, indeed, go to school today. Amy hangs up and tries to call Noah, something she will attempt to do a lot over the next hour. But he’s not answering. So she decides to call the police. Except the police call her first. They want to know some information about Noah. “Why?” Amy asks. They refuse to say. Amy tells them everything she can, including one detail she’d forgotten until now, at least in how it relates to her son – tomorrow is the anniversary of her husband’s death.

During this time, Amy is desperately trying to get people to pick her up. But everybody’s already at the school, trying to figure out if their own kids are safe. So she calls an Uber. An Uber that’s going to be there in 5 minutes. Then 10 minutes. Then 15 minutes. Everything in town is being affected by the situation at the school. If Amy’s going to get there, she’s going to have to do it with her own two feet.

Amy is able to get in touch with an auto technician working on her car who happens to be right next to the high school. She orders the guy to go to the school to try and see if he can find her son. Within minutes, the technician tells her that the cops are towing away a car – HER SON’S CAR. Now Amy is really freaking out. As she continues her journey towards the school, she makes a series of frantic calls to try and figure out where her son is and what’s going on. Until finally, Noah answers… and she finds out the truth.

“Hey, Screenwriter A. I want to make a school shooting movie. Can you write it for me? Please come up with a good idea.” 999 out of 1000 screenwriters are going to come up with the Obvious Angle, which is something like this.

But Chris Sparling learned, early on, that it’s possible to tell stories in the unlikeliest of ways. And so he came up with a really cool angle for a school shooter movie. A school shooter movie told in real time through the point of view of a mother out in the middle of nowhere whose son may or may not be the school shooter.

That’s freaking genius.

Because think about it. When you put us in the school with the shooting, what kind of scenes are you going to get? Students pleading for their lives while an outcast kid in a black jacket shoots them dead? How many times have you seen that image before? A lot. Moments lose their dramatic impact the more that you see them.

Okay, so you can’t use that. What can you use? Well, what’s just as horrifying as a school shooter? Being a mother who learns that there’s a school shooting in progress and not knowing if her son is dead or not. That’s real horror. So Sparling built an entire screenplay around that. It’s so simple yet so brilliant that it makes you feel like every great idea does: Why didn’t I think of that myself?

Watching Amy desperately call person after person seeing if there’s anything she can do to help her child is way more riveting than anything you could’ve shown us inside the school.

Plus, Sparling adds this fun secondary plot element. It isn’t just, is my son okay? But is my son the person who’s killing everyone? In a way, that’s even worse than your son dying. So we go through a good 30 pages wondering if Noah is the shooter or not. But even after that question is answered, Sparling uses his concept to his advantage. We’re still nowhere near the school. We still don’t have all the answers. So we still have a series of phone calls to make where Amy is trying to figure out what’s going on.

The script is also a reminder that immediacy is a spec screenwriter’s best friend. Concepts with immediacy work well with specs because spec scripts are the ones readers give up on the quickest. Spec script are usually from writers trying to break in so they’re often not as good. Even if a reader likes a spec, there’s a good chance they can’t do anything with it since it’s harder to get original material made. So when you have a concept that’s immediate, the reader has no choice but to keep reading. That’s on full display with Lakewood.

Another nut that Sparling has cracked is the old screenwriting trick of making every beat of your hero’s journey difficult. A common beginner mistake is to roll out the red carpet for the protagonist. Give them all the help they need every step of the way because you want them to win at the end. Unfortunately, that’s not how good stories work. You need to make things hard for your hero. And Lakewood is a great example of the benefits of doing so.

How do you get information about someone inside a school during a shooting when nobody has any information? How do you get to the school when you’re in the middle of nowhere and everyone you know is too busy seeing if their own kids are okay? How do you get in contact with your son when he won’t answer? Sparling doesn’t give Amy a single break during this movie. Even ordering an Uber is a nightmare. Who hasn’t experienced the fury of seeing your Uber three minutes away… then check a minute later and now it’s eight minutes away? Well imagine that happening when your son’s life is on the line.

It was fun seeing Sparling go back to his roots here. This is, essentially, Buried. A guy in a coffin with a cell phone. It’s just that, this time, the coffin is the “middle of nowhere.” It’s also a GREAT way to get a movie made – a big idea (school shooting) and you could literally shoot it in 12 days. It’s just Naomie Watts out on a road. It’s crazy how cheap this probably was yet it feels HUGE. That’s the dream concept.

Don’t have anything bad to say about this one. Definitely a script all amateur screenwriters should study.

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

What I learned: Throw out breadcrumbs instead of the whole loaf. The writer could’ve easily said, “Your son is the shooter” up front. But that’s boring. That’s the whole loaf. Writing is about leaving breadcrumbs. We learn that Noah didn’t go to school today (breadcrumb). Then we learn that’s not true. Someone saw him show up (breadcrumb). Then we learn that the police are towing his car (breadcrumb). Then we learn tomorrow is the anniversary of Noah’s father’s death (breadcrumb). Another great thing about breadcrumbs is you can lead the reader wherever you want to lead them. In other words, you can make them believe Noah is the shooter and then flip it on them. Turns out it’s someone else. Of course, none of this is possible if you throw the loaf at them right away.

Before we get to today’s regularly scheduled programming, there’s something that’s been bothering me about Rotten Tomatoes. There’s this contingent of low budget horror movies that get unusually high scores on the site that don’t match up with the quality of the film. “Alone,” about a man stalking a female driver – 94% RT score. 58% audience score. I saw that movie and it was literally “first movie out of film school” weak. “His House,” which focuses on two displaced refugees in a haunted house. 100% RT score. 76% audience score. Extremely serious for a horror film. Disarmingly so. “Relic,” about an elderly mother’s erratic behavior, scored a 91% RT score with critics and only a 48% audience score. I don’t know if someone has figured out how to game the system for indie horror films on RT but there’s clearly something going on here and it’s annoying because I’m always looking for a good horror film and if I go by Rotten Tomatoes, I get burned every time. Anyone know what’s going on?

With that upbeat announcement, let’s get to the ten films I refused to watch this year because I knew they’d bore me to pieces. Trigger warning in advance! Some of you might get upset that I’m reviewing movies without seeing them. That’s not what I’m doing, though. I’m reviewing these movies from a conceptual/marketing perspective only. I’m fascinated by what makes the average person decide to watch a movie. The concept, the marketing, the trailer, the pitch – all of this is stuff you should be obsessing over as a screenwriter when you write something. Because even if you write the best script you’ve ever written? If it looks like Nomadland, a movie that makes you want to kill yourself when you watch the trailer, you’re going to have an insanely difficult time getting anybody to read the script. And with that, here are the ten movies in 2020 I wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole!

I’m Thinking of Ending Things – There are certain topics that are so depressing, they don’t work well within the cinematic format. Suicide is one of those topics for me. The exception to that is when you play off the expected tone and have fun with it. The 1985 comedy, Better Off Dead, comes to mind. Even the recent Netflix show, 13 Reasons Why, created this fun mystery component to the story that implied, for most of the season, that this might not have even been a suicide, but rather a murder. My issue with I’m Thinking of Ending Things is that it leans into the tone of depression and suicide so heavily that it’s too on-the-nose. It’s not a surprise to me at all, then, that the audience score for Kaufman’s latest was only 47%.

Bad Boys for Life – Bad Boys was the poster child for empty-calories entertainment in the 90s. You had the director – Michael Bay – who may be the director most uninterested in the human condition in all of Hollywood. This guy’s deepest thought every day is whether to add mild or hot sauce to his Taco Bell Grande burrito. This meant that the actors in Bad Boys, Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, were relegated to improvising as many variations of “Aww, helllll no!” as possible. Ironically, if I were asked to classify this franchise in three words, it would be: “Aw, hell no.” The biggest mystery about this movie is why did they want to make it? I would rather have seen a sequel to the underrated Martin Lawrence film, The Black Knight, than this. But I do give it props for making a lot of dough. I didn’t think the appetite would be as high as it was. And it managed to beat the pandemic.

Mank – “You can’t include “Mank,” Carson. You saw Mank!” That’s the funny thing. This movie was so forgettable that I actually forgot I saw it when I added it to the list. And it only came out a couple of weeks ago! Despite this, I realize that Mank is a rare achievement in Hollywood that only a select few filmmakers every generation enjoy. It’s when a director is so successful for so long that they can make a movie that only one person cares about – them. Nobody else asked for this movie. It has one fan and one fan only. That fan is David Fincher. And, hey, all the power to him. If I’m ever that successful, I’ll probably make a movie only I like as well.

Nomadland – Carson, why do you hate indie film so much? The truth is I do not hate indie film. In fact, here are a few indie I’ve enjoyed over the last few years: Parasite. Jojo Rabbit. The Favourite. Three Billboards. Do you notice a trend with all of these movies? Oh yeah, it’s that THEY’RE NOT DEPRESSING AS SHIT!!!! That’s all I’m asking for from my indie movie. That it not depress the hell out of me. And there is nothing in this universe that looks as depressing as this film. It isn’t even that I can’t take depressing narratives. But there has to be variety of emotion in a movie. It can’t be one single depressing note the whole way through. It irks me that movies like this get made because they seem to be saying, “Suffer through our depressing film so you can hear our message.” I’m sorry but I don’t watch movies to suffer.

First Cow – Without question, the single worst title of 2020. And maybe the worst title of the decade. It really says something that this movie is so highly reviewed yet I will never see it because of the title alone. A title is supposed to inform. Create curiosity. Give us a feel for what kind of movie we’re watching. Unless this is literally about the first cow in existence, this title does none of these things. This is another thing about indie film that bothers me. They don’t have people pushing back as much. So there’s no one to challenge anything. This is especially relevant in this case since someone needed to say, “I refuse to distribute this movie unless you change the title.”

Songbird – There’s miscalculation and then there’s stupidity. People don’t like to watch movies about upsetting subject matter while the subject is still happening. Michael Bay’s decision to make a movie about the pandemic during the pandemic would be second only to making a movie about 9-11 two months after 9-11. Oh yeah, I think somebody did that, too. In times of crisis, people don’t like to be reminded of said crisis. They like to laugh. They like to get lost in a fun story. There’s a good example of how to do this right and I have to thank Poe for it because he alerted me to the movie. The film is called “Host” and the whole story takes place over a Zoom meeting during the pandemic, which isn’t even about the pandemic. Check it out if you like horror.

The Lovebirds – The Lovebirds represents one of the oldest mistakes Hollywood makes. They take two quickly rising actors and assume that because everybody likes those actors individually that everybody will like them together as well. That’s not how it works. Every couple has its own personality just like every individual has their own personality. Nobody wanted to see a movie with these two together. Literally nobody. You see them in a poster and it’s the easiest “no thank you” you’ve ever said. Same thing happened with Passengers. You took one look at Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt and said, “Something’s not right here.” I guess I understand, logically, why this happens. Actors are commodities and attaching hot ones are one of the best ways to move a project forward. But somebody needs to solve this particular problem because nobody wants to see movies like this.

The Last Days of American Crime – If anybody anywhere understands the plot to this movie, please let me know. I’ve never watched twenty minutes of something and been more confused than while watching this. This is only a movie that could’ve been made in this time, in this environment, with this business model, because Netflix is still so new to the feature game that they don’t have any quality control in place yet. The thing is, “Last Days of American Crime” has an interesting concept at its core – a blocker that the government initiates in all individuals makes them unable to perform a crime. But like so many bad writers before him, this writer took that idea and decided to make it as complex as possible instead of as simple as possible. Let this be your 6785th reminder that simple narratives win out over complex ones 99.9% of the time.

Fatman – I wanna pitch something to you. Are you ready? Miracle on 34th street meets Fargo. “Um, what exactly?” “You know, a movie about Santa Clause but it’s a crime film.” “But that doesn’t make any sense.” “Egggsaccctly.” “Um, no I don’t think you’re hearing me. That’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard.” Look, I’m all for doing something different. But when you’re doing something different, it can’t be forced. There are certain genres that don’t want to be mixed together. Sure, I could pitch a new version of “A Christmas Story,” told in three chapters, all of them backwards, in the style of a sci-fi Christopher Nolan film, for which I would win the “found a new angle” award. But did I create a good idea that audiences would actually want to pay for? No. I did not. And that’s the case with Fatman as well. I mean, this is a really poor idea for a movie.

Sound of Metal – I know I’m going to get some blowback on this one but there’s something about this movie, despite the critical praise, that’s keeping me away. And I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the concept. A drummer for a rock band is losing his hearing? My first thought when you pitch me that is: I don’t care. I’m sorry. I don’t care if a drummer loses his hearing, lol. So what! I hate movies that put messaging over entertainment. But the flip side of that coin is when a movie isn’t about anything. This just seems so devoid of depth to me. Some of you may say, “Give it a chance, Carson!” That’s the point I’m trying to make, though! We all only have a finite amount of time. Which means we can’t watch everything. Which is why it’s so damn important to get the concept right. Millions of people are going to be looking at that concept and asking, ‘Do I want to check that out or no?” And they’re going to be making that decision within three seconds. So the more powerful you can make your pitch, the better off you’re going to be. Who the hell cares if a drummer loses his hearing?

Stand by for my favorite movies of 2020! Have there even been 10 good movies in 2020? Find out tomorrow! And share the 2020 movie you refused to watch!

Mayhem Jones, you ask? Who’s that? Isn’t the writer of the number one script, Sophie Dawson? Well, around here we’ve always known her as Mayhem. Not just because it’s her online alias, but because she’s always up to some kind of mischief. The good kind of mischief, of course. Speaking of mischief, Mayhem’s script, Headhunter, follows a cannibal who selects his victims based on their Instagram popularity. Today I ask her about that script, how she develops her ideas, and how she crafted the voice that won her so many fans around town. Enjoy the interview!

I know who I want to play Alan

SS: First off, congratulations! This all must be a bit overwhelming.

MJ: Thank you! I work a crappy retail job and this customer was arguing with me about leggings as my phone was blowing up with the news. I’m obsessed with Franklin Leonard and his annual Black List – my goal was to make the very bottom of it at some point in my life, so HEADHUNTER hitting #1 left me speechless. I quickly texted a friend who squealed: “I just showed the manager of H&M your name in Deadline!” and I was like, “Do you even know this person??” and he went, “No, but we’re both FREAKING OUT!!”

SS: By the way. There are many a rumor about where you live and what you do. I recently heard you live off the grid in a forest so big that it hasn’t been fully charted by the United States government yet. Can you tell us anything about where you reside or is that top secret?

MJ: TOP SECRET. I enjoy being incredibly difficult to reach, so when my managers insisted I set-up my cell phone’s voicemail (for the first time ever, I might add) stating my actual name and stuff… I was livid. It’s been 4 months and I’m still pissed! It’s really bizarre seeing people mention a script using my real name now. Don’t they mean Mayhem Jones??

SS: Why do you think, of all the scripts you’ve written, that Headhunter is the one that clicked with people and helped you break out?

MJ: Let’s face it, most of my earlier dialogue-driven work exploded all over the page in an insane, uncontrollable frenzy. With HEADHUNTER, I slowed down a bit. It’s still weird – but with less spin outs, more control! The producers and executives I talked to said it was a fun, interesting read that felt so different from what they’re normally given. Most importantly: you only need to find ONE PERSON to love and champion your script, and I hit the freakin’ jackpot finding a team who immediately took to the material. (Ha ha, sickos!)

SS: Can you tell us a little about your process for writing a screenplay? Do you jump right in? Do you meticulously outline?

MJ: I have a 40-beat chart that I use color-coded post-its to fill with one sentence scene pitches. I transfer that over to a word document where I go deeper: scene summary, links of research I might need, and “dialogue ideas”. I’ll transfer that into a Final Draft document with each beat numbered for clarity. I then write 2-3 scenes per day – withholding sleep, and sometimes food – until I make that quota. Once I have a more formal draft, I change my quota to 5-10 pages per day to more closely shape the scenes. I see dialogue and scene descriptions as totally different things, so I’ll do 10-20 pages a day of ONLY scene description work/polish, then switch to 5-10 pages a day of ONLY dialogue polish. I then do more broader passes of 20-30 pages per day.

Towards the end, I’ll do a “reader engagement” check – do I skim quicker over certain scenes? Those need more work. With a dialogue-heavy script like HEADHUNTER, I’ll have easily gone through it 100+ times, sometimes only changing a few words or moving a comma. I’ll go over the first 5-10 pages an extra 30+ times because it’s critical to gain the reader’s trust early.

SS: Headhunter has a BIG main character. Can you share your approach to character creation?

MJ: When I’m writing more voice-y stuff, it’s essential I relate in some way to the main character. This way, they can serve as a vector for my thoughts and opinions – which will lead to more energetic prose. I wanted to do a commentary on everyone’s 24/7 addiction to social media, so it made sense to make a cannibal character (us!) literally consume Instagram models (social media!), right? In general, I love the exploration of dark/demented characters that are presented in a more digestible way (uhhh, no pun intended). When people heard about HEADHUNTER early on, they were like: “Ewww! I’m not reading a script about a CANNIBAL!!” But once they found out I wrote it, they were like “Oh… OK. I know Sophie will do something different with it.”

SS: I suspect your dialogue was a big reason this script got passed around. What’s your secret to strong dialogue?

MJ: Dialogue succeeds when it’s natural, so I go with my “first take” as much as possible. The more you tweak it, the more awkward it sounds. I’m neurotic about looking up words I don’t know, and keep notes of dialogue ideas that pop into my mind. Even if I’m about to fall asleep – I’ll wake up and write it down. I’ll then go through my script and input these lines where they’d make the most sense. I was in Whole Foods listening to a pretentious douche brag about the price of avocados, and was like – my main character in HEADHUNTER could totally troll someone like that before killing them. Later, I read an article about how it rains diamonds on the planet Neptune. That fact was incredible! It’s a little too random to work into a conversation, but seemed like the perfect annoying ice breaker for an Uber driver.

You can even get more nit-picky if you want, and use rhythmic cadences. In HEADHUNTER, every time the main character wanted to close his eyes and disappear to another place – the description of the places he was daydreaming about had a certain rhythmic pattern. Towards the end of the script, when these daydreams were becoming more violent/unhinged, I slightly changed the rhythm (achieved by simply using words with different amounts of syllables) to be a bit “off” – so the sequence was more jarring.

SS: You get endless compliments about your unique voice, and rightfully so. Can you give other writers tips on finding their unique voice?

MJ: Ask yourself: what annoys the SH*T out of you? Start ranting about it. Seriously. Pull up a word document or whatever and write a paragraph about what pisses you off the most. Now, read it. Notice how animated you are? Notice how specific you are? Listen to yourself when you get angry – whether it’s about the Tesla that just cut you off, or the friend trying to offload their $1 Lake Tahoe timeshare on you – that super raw, inner monologue of yours is your “voice”. Apply that inner energy to scripts that deal with topics you have opinions on, and I guarantee you’ll notice a different kind of writing.

SS: What everyone is always asking is how to get an agent, how to get a manager, how a script goes from one’s computer to “sale.” Can you tell us, in as much detail as possible, how you got your agent/manager?

MJ: HEADHUNTER made the quarterfinals/semifinals in the 2020 Academy Nicholl Fellowships, and my friend was like, “YOU GOTTA QUERY PEOPLE RIGHT NOW!”. I hate querying so much, but I trolled the interwebs for awesome managers – begrudgingly sending the simplest/least annoying pitch I could to one per day. Someone on Reddit posted a Twitter thread by literary manager John Zaozirny, head of Bellevue Productions. It was about how he manages clients… I instantly became obsessed! I sent him a quick pitch, and amazingly he responded with a read request.

I was getting more read requests and even meetings – but after a zoom with John and his colleague Zack Zucker, I knew I wanted them in my life ASAP!! (I was right – they don’t mind my freak outs, ALL CAPS EMAILS, and ridiculous ideas, ha ha!) John and Zack started sending out HEADHUNTER, and it led to an astonishing six agencies wanting to know more about me. It was excruciating to decide (as many of these fabulous, fabulous agents have clients on this years Black List!!) but I have a wonderful team of people as crazy as me.

SS: Headhunter won Amateur Showdown and was reviewed on Scriptshadow a while back. Was there any feedback from the commenters you got that day that helped you improve the script to what it is now? If so, can you highlight some?

MJ: Honestly, the biggest complaint from that weekend was the genre. Everyone HATED that I called it a drama, saying it was more of a dark comedy. So I started labeling it as a dark comedy/satire. Except for some minor tweaks, it’s pretty much the same! The biggest change? A modified title. My manager John went all Sean Parker (from that famous scene in THE SOCIAL NETWORK) and said: “Drop the ‘The’. Just – HEADHUNTER.”

SS: I’ve found that there’s a direct correlation between a writer’s ability to stay positive and the length of time they stick with the craft. And since it takes a while to get good at this screenwriting thing, possessing the skill of remaining positive is very important. You are well-known for your positivity. Can you share your secret?

MJ: First off, you have to be in complete and utter denial about your odds of becoming a screenwriter. Like, it can’t even occur to you that it might not work out. You have to – naively as possible – keep marching forward. You gotta be a video game character that just keeps dying then regenerating. Second: you have to get over yourself, and get over yourself QUICK. I’m not perfect, not every script I write will be great, and I still have an unimaginable amount of things to learn about screenwriting. Self-deprecation and an overall humorous outlook on life (and its setbacks) is essential!

If one script doesn’t work out, maybe the next one will. Enjoy the hell out of any praise you get, but also get rejected often and early. I’ve been called EVERYTHING – from a “ranting maniac who probably spends her free time assembling robots out of old dishwasher parts” and “a mind numbing, insufferable dialogue hack” to a “plot-less blowhard who only writes to hear the sound of her own voice”. I’ll then dramatically read these jabs to my Mother, who’s like: “Sophie, most of those things are true.” HA!

SS: What are some of the tips you’ve learned over the years that have really improved your screenwriting? I like to call them, “Ah-ha,” moments. Can you give us a few of those tips that, when you heard them, you thought, “Oh my God, I need to start doing that!”

MJ: There’s so many great lessons everywhere, but for me one really stands out: I love the complexity of the opening scene in Aaron Sorkin’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK. The way the conversation is so out-of-step – with Mark Zuckerberg both jumping forwards and backwards on different topics – while Erica Albright just tries to keep up (being a few paces behind, or ahead). I’ll never be qualified to breathe the same air as Aaron, but this kind of jagged word play is interesting to watch and incredibly fun to write! If it fits the script I’m working on, I really like having an aloof character not quite on the same page as whoever they’re talking to.

SS: You’ve sent me, I believe, 5 scripts over a period of 8 years? And I believe you’ve written 20 scripts in total. In an industry where you get so little positive feedback until you make it, how did you stay motivated during that time?

MJ: WOW, has it been that long?! I feel like I started to take screenwriting “seriously” about 3-4 years ago. Because I was just writing off-and-on as a hobby (taking year-long breaks) during extremely demanding publishing jobs in New York City. But as my scripts got more and more positive feedback, I was like – wait, should I try to make this a career? I was just so swept up in climbing the ladder in a completely different industry that I wasn’t thinking about it. I just wrote for fun, experimenting in drama, dark comedy, and sci-fi to figure out my strengths and weaknesses.

I wouldn’t even use the term “motivated” to describe how I kept going… I’d rather say: have malignant, narcissistic masochist tendencies (seriously, be a complete sadist) with an urge to keep writing and throwing your work online. Amateur Offerings Weekend is one of the BEST things your site has ever offered to aspiring screenwriters – and was one of my biggest motivations to write, knowing I could pitch you some wacky crap and maybe you’d give me a chance. Thank you so much!

SS: You are, of course, welcome. One last question. You’ve got such an incredible imagination. What was your craziest script idea? Can you pitch it to us?

MJ: I had a terrible experience at the retail store JCPenney a couple years ago, so I came home and decided I was going to write a screenplay called: JCPENNEY IS A WHORE. I basically just listened to Beck albums on repeat while crafting this story about a suicidal man having 24 hours to locate someone’s stolen Justin Bieber concert ticket – before a bomb under that seat blew up the LA Staples Center. It opened with the protagonist tied up in Richard Simmons basement, having been lost in a human poker match to his insane maid.

There was only one scene that took place in an actual JCPenney (right before the main character went to Leonardo DiCaprio’s house for a party). It basically had everything you NEVER want in a script: sex robot-addicted cops, murders at Jack in the Box, a pimp with itchy pants syndrome who’s obsessed with vintage Nintendo systems, Chuck E. Cheese, and cameos by Amanda Bynes and Tish Cyrus (Miley’s mom). It never got past the outline stage, DON’T WORRY!!

The saddest thing about Scriptshadow Showdowns? Only one gunslinger survives.

Tomorrow is the SUPER SHOWDOWN we’ve all been waiting for where the winners of the last four Amateur Showdowns face off. Considering that a previous Amateur Showdown winner took the top spot on the 2020 Black List, I can only imagine what will happen with the winner of Super Showdown!!! Is an 8-figure sale on the table? I don’t see why not.

But that’s not what today’s article is about. Today is about the eight scripts that finished at the bottom of the last four showdowns. Amateur Showdown mirrors Hollywood in that if a potential reader doesn’t think the script sounds interesting, they won’t open it. You almost have to imagine Amateur Showdown times 100. Or Amateur Showdown times 1000. That’s how many entries you’re up against. It’s only once you internalize that, that you realize how enticing your script idea needs to be to stand out from those other 5000.

So I’m going to break down the eight loglines that finished in last place and see if we can identify weaknesses that might help the writers – and, in turn, you guys – understand why the scripts didn’t score well. It may have nothing to do with the concept. Sometimes it’s the execution that’s the problem. But usually, if a script isn’t getting a lot of love, there’s something faulty in the concept. Today, we’re going to identify those faults.

Before we get to that, for reference’s sake, here are the winners of the last four Amateur Showdowns…

FIRST WEEK WINNER
Title: Our Hero
Genre: Family Comedy
Logline: When 3 nerdy middle school kids discover the secret lair of a burned-out superhero; the world’s most powerful man agrees to be their friend in exchange for keeping his secret.

SECOND WEEK WINNER
Title: Bad Influence
Genre: Horror Comedy
Logline: After a popular child influencer gets possessed by the devil, her family, who rely on her income, struggle to keep her brand alive.

THIRD WEEK WINNER
Title: Archer
Genre: War
Logline: 1415 — As the English army marches towards doom in the greatest battle of the medieval age, a young archer seeks redemption for his past under the cruel tutelage of his ruthless and invincible sergeant. A medieval FURY meets PLATOON.

FOURTH WEEK WINNER
Title: POSSESSIONS
Genre: Horror
Logline: An estranged daughter returns to her childhood home to help with her mother’s extreme hoarding only to discover her mother’s cursed by one of her many, many possessions.

They will be facing off tomorrow so get ready to vote! Okay, now let’s try to fix the scripts that got the lowest number of votes.

Title: Violet Sun
Genre: Horror
Logline: Born with a severe allergy to sunlight, a maladjusted teenager struggles to cure his disease by consuming the healthy blood of unsuspecting victims so he can win back the girl of his dreams before she leaves his life forever.

Analysis: I thought this was going to do a lot better. One of the most common pieces of screenwriting advice you hear is to identify a successful concept then find a fresh angle on it. This is a vampire movie without actual vampires. I felt that was a good pitch. Not to mention, it’s been a while since we’ve had a big vampire movie. And since vampires ALWAYS come back, I thought this was showing up at just the right time. But that’s the weird thing about timing. It’s always too soon until one day it isn’t. And it usually “isn’t” when someone comes up with a killer screenplay in the genre. Alas, maybe Violet Sun just didn’t stick the landing.

Title: IN A FIX
Genre: Thriller
Logline: Amid growing tensions with a rival gang, a fixer must quit her job before her controlling crime boss discovers she is pregnant.

Analysis: I’m not as surprised that this one struggled. For starters, I don’t think everyone knows what a “fixer” is. It’s a general enough term that a lot of people won’t know what’s going on. And like I always remind everyone, generalities get you nowhere in loglines. It’s the specifics that win over the reader. In other words, it isn’t the “family lives on a farm and must avoid a world of monsters” that gets you to read A Quiet Place. It’s that the monsters have super-hearing which means even the slightest sound can get you killed. I’ve also found that words like “gang” without context can be logline killers. What gang? There are thousands of gangs. What’s unique about this one? Again, BE MORE SPECIFIC. Finally, it isn’t clear why the complication in the logline – being pregnant – is so bad. Is there a known pregnancy bias in this line of work? So this one had a lot of issues and my guess is that it’s low vote count had a lot to do with readers simply not opening the script. This is my weekly reminder to get a logline evaluation, guys (e-mail “logline consult” to carsonreeves!@gmail.com). I can help you avoid these problems.

Title: Get Woke
Genre: Buddy-comedy
Logline: An old-school police officer joins forces with his tech-savvy teenage daughter to crack the case of a social media influencer’s cyber stalker.

Analysis: I was so bummed when this one didn’t do well. It was one of my favorite titles. I think this is another case of choosing the wrong things to focus on in the logline. I don’t know what the actual story is (it’s been forever since I read the first ten pages) but I would hope that the specifics of the setup are more interesting than what I’m seeing here. We start off with too common-sounding of a team-up. It’s the “old school” police officer. How many times have we seen that in a logline? A million? That’s okay, though, if you get us excited about the team-up partner. But all we hear about her is that she’s “tech-savvy.” That’s the wrong thing to focus on in a concept like this. When you hear “Get Woke,” you’re immediately thinking of political correctness and social issues. But there’s no mention of either anywhere in the logline. In fact, if this wasn’t titled “Get Woke,” I would think it was silly comedy about the internet. So there’s a disconnect there. Lesson? Make sure your logline and title are simpatico.

Title: Unchained
Genre: Action
Logline: Two fallen out sister-soldiers must reunite and reconcile as they fight their way through a train of mercenaries to reclaim a mysterious WMD-classified object that drove them apart — before the ride reaches its destination.

Analysis: One of the reasons I put this one into the showdown is because I wanted some variety and there weren’t a lot of straight action scripts to choose from. But even as I was putting it up, I sensed that it would struggle. As someone pointed out in the comments, I don’t know what a “sister-soldier” is. Is it two sisters who were also soldiers and the writer just wanted to pare that down into a combo-word for faster reading? Is it that whenever two women fought in the army together, they are known as “sister-soldiers?” It’s frustrating because I don’t know. One of the fastest ways to kill a logline is to confuse the reader early. And there’s a specific reason for that. The reader says to himself, “If this writer can’t make one sentence clear, how is he going to make 110 pages of sentences clear?” I would’ve also told the reader what the WMD is. Once again, you do not pull in readers with generalities. You pull them in with specifics. “WMD” makes this sound like every other action movie ever.

Title: The Article
Genre: Contained Drama/Thriller
Logline: When the CEO of a large media news company invites a troubled Male escort to her apartment……things are not as they seem.

Analysis: I thought this one was going to do better. I liked the twist of a female hiring a male escort instead of what we usually see, which is the other way around. I liked the contained component of the story. I liked how the large media company implied that there were some stakes on the line. It’s not like this escort is showing up at some middle manager’s one-bedroom apartment. But now that I’m looking at the logline again, I can see why it didn’t do well. It contains the logline-killing “ending to nowhere” tag. “They get stuck in a haunted house where they realize… they are not alone.” “An antiquities dealer is presented with a choice… that will change her life forever.” “A politician must win the election while keeping… a horrifying secret from his past.” TELL US THE THING!!! TELL IT TO US! The “thing” is what gets us excited. It’s what gets us to read. Why would you ever not include it in the logline? Do you really think someone’s going to get excited to read something where someone… “experiences a terror they’ve never experienced before?” What’s the terror???? I think if the writer had included what ‘wasn’t as it seemed,’ he would’ve gotten a lot more reads and, therefore, a lot more votes.

Title: Big Stick
Genre: 1 Hr. TV Drama
Logline: After a crushing fall from grace, a Boston cop/mom with an anxiety disorder retreats to her California surf community where her rogue investigation into a young girl’s murder teases a career do-over requiring the takedown of a powerful judge and her surf-hero son.

Analysis: To be fair, this is a feature-driven contest. Having a TV idea is a handicap. With that said, there are a LOOOOOOOOTTTTT of TV ideas being pitched all over town. And while they don’t need to be as high concept as movie concepts, they do need some aspect of them that stands out. The most specific component of this logline is surfing. Everything else is general to the TV landscape(fall from grace, a girl has been murdered, returning home). So I would at least hope that there was something interesting going on with the surf aspect in the logline. But it feels like window dressing. ‘Oh yeah, and people surf here too!’ Maybe if the girl murdered was a surfer and the protagonists’s son is also a surfer, and the logline hints at the idea that he may be involved, now you’re getting closer to an appealing concept. But as it stands, nothing in this logline screams, “Oh my God, I have to read this now.” I’m not saying every logline has to do that. But I started out this article reminding you of just how many concepts your script is in competition with. So if you’re not going to write something that has an “Oh my God, I have to read this now” concept, you have to accept that your job just got a lot harder. Cause you’re going to be trying to get people to read something that, when they hear the pitch, they’re not going to be excited to read. That’s always a tougher road.

Title: Kelsey’s Crossing
Genre: Drama
Logline: When the helicopter she’s riding in over the Sonoran desert crashes in Mexico, the racist host of an anti-immigrant youtube channel has to rely on a group of migrants to survive the dangers and brutality of the desert and help her travel 40 miles to get back to American soil.

Analysis: I was surprised this didn’t do better. This logline was one of, maybe, twenty-five in the entire contest, that truly understood how to develop a concept with irony. I don’t know if the execution was lackluster or what. But as I’m re-reading the logline now, I’m noticing one thing that may have hurt it. This part: “the racist host of an anti-immigrant youtube channel.” While that does convey the concept to the reader, it doesn’t put an image in their head. It doesn’t even tell us if it’s a man or a woman (even though pronouns tell us later and the title implies it). Nailing the identity of this person is key to making this logline work. For example, if I told you the main character looked like Natalie Portman and wore a hoodie, that’s going to put a different movie in your head than if I told you she looked like Blake Lively and was quickly becoming Fox News’ next big anchor. Imagery is so important in envisioning movies so when you have an idea like this one where look is so important, make sure to tell us what the person looks like.

Title: Ambrosia
Genre: Time Travel/Heist
Logline: Three anxiety-ridden young adults discover an experimental drug that allows them to time travel back 36 hours after each overdose. As the side effects intensify and their tolerance builds, each time travel back becomes reduced (16 hours, 8 hours, etc), but they keep going back anyways to perfect a bank robbery. Meanwhile, the town’s leading detective chases them down.

Analysis: I think this is a pretty good idea but anyone who’s read a lot of scripts before knows that when time-travel rules get even a little bit complicated, the story falls apart quickly. Props to Alex because he makes the concept sound as simple as it can. But I heard right away in the comments that people were getting confused reading the script, and that wasn’t surprising at all. I do think this idea of continuing to go back in time to execute a heist could work. But I’d encourage Alex to simplify the rules. It’s like beating a dead horse at this point. I always warn writers away from complicated time travel. But they keep ignoring me!