All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
This is for the discussion of the pro script I Want To _____ Your Sister.
If you don’t have a copy of the script, please contact Mike Shelton for a copy. It’s important we all read the same version.
Here is a reminder of the club objective and guidelines for this discussion:
Quoted from Breanne
The objective: to study a script that sold in Hollywood; to examine what made it sell; and to use it as a model to help give us a better understanding of how to improve our own work toward the goal of selling a script.
Here are the ground rules (yes there are rules):
1) We are not here to discuss what’s wrong with the script. We are here to discuss what’s right about it. Arguments over its artistic merits are outside the scope of this discussion.
2) Read the entire script before commenting on it.
3) Let’s try and focus on one subject at a time. That doesn’t mean we have to stay in one area of the script at a time. For example; the subject of character arc would require studying events throughout the entire story. But the subject would be a particular character’s arc.
4) Be nice! Just remember; we all have the same ultimate goal, which is to sell our work. Everyone has their own opinion and is entitled to it.
Any subject that pertains to why this script sold or is professional level is acceptable for discussion so long as we remain focused on one area at a time. Other than that, it’s an open discussion. Participants are encouraged to offer their thoughts or insights on each subject.
The first subject of discussion is the main character. Who is it? When/How is he or she introduced? Let’s discuss the character’s story arc. It’s okay to discuss other characters as they relate to the main character but we are looking primarily at the main character’s motivation and how they drive the story.
Have fun and enjoy. Let’s all work together and learn something that will help us personally improve as writers.
Maybe you’re the only human in a world of robots -- haha.
I know it feels that way sometimes. The Script Club is still very new. Order is still rising from the chaos. If it’s too relaxed, it scatters in every direction. If it’s too confined, it feels…well…confined.
If there are no rules, people feel it needs clear goals. If everything is set forth and laid out, it seems restrictive. It’s all part of the growth process.
We all write and we all try and help each other out. But very little time has been spent here studying professional scripts; really examining as a group what makes them pro level. I believe this will not only help us become better writers but it will help us better help each other. It’ll help us give better, more practical advice, when we review each other’s work.
If we want to sell our work, then Hollywood (or whoever else produces films) is our desired customer. We have to look at what they buy and why they buy it. To some degree, like it or not, we have to cater to the customer.
I sincerely believe that once Script Club finds its footing, it will be one of the most valuable assets here at the site.
I'd say the main character is Drew. He's the one who goes through the most change and even the title says 'I want to f____ your sister'.
A lot of people will connect with Drew - maybe, not the lifestyle as such - but definately the looking out for his sister part. I think that is a very marketable idea and reveals a lot of insecurities in himself. Such as, is his fear of Mandy not being able to cope in the big city really a reflection of his own ability to cope?
Mandy's obviously a major character too, but I'd say she's the antagonist. She's the element that gets thrown into Drew's life to create the change. But as we're discussing the main character I'll leave off her.
Alright, having read the script awhile back, I think I'm comfortable enough to jump right in with just a little bit of refresher skimming.
To the questions at hand - Who is the main character, how are they introduced, what's their character arc, and what makes them so likeable and investment worthy.
The title of main character definitely falls into Drew's hands. It's his sister that everyone wants to F___ after all. It's only logical.
Drew's introduction is one of a generally flakey person. Okay, maybe not flakey, but somebody who has their priorities a little out of whack. He was supposed to pick up Mandy at the train station, but we find out after she's robbed that he's out entertaining potential clients at Scores and basically establishing himself as against marriage. He eventually closes the deal and we cut to later where Drew is still totally oblivious, at least until a co-worker points out his error.
During this time we also learn about Drew's rule over "Intern Bingo" and his feud with Davis Baker, which escalates when Drew gets yelled at by his boss for a ridiculous expense report and informed that if he can't close a deal, Davis will get a shot at it. This occurs at almost the exact same time that Drew discovers that Mandy is the center square in intern bingo.
I thought this was pretty interesting way to go about things, almost as if it's piling on since two very important aspects of Drew's life (work and family) are in upheaval.
Drew's character arc is pretty straightforward in that he starts off as a womanizer, going so far as to try and hook up with Mandy's friend Laurel, eventually succeeding about a third through the script. But as the script goes on, Drew starts to become a little less occupied with his own sex life, and more focused on his sister's, mainly that it stays non-existent. He's totally protective of her, and does what he can to keep her "safe" with pretty disastrous results.
A feud eventually breaks otu between them when Drew tells Davis that Mandy has balls, and she sets out to find the perfect person to "date" and piss him off. This is where Aarjev, the convenience store owner/clerk comes into the story a little more heavily. We learned prior that he was not the greatest of friends with Drew, and ends up being the perfect foil. Drew has also been so tied up with protecting Mandy, that he's started to let his work responsibilities slip, which is another part of his character arc. Drew's life eventually starts to crumble around him when he thinks that Mandy is sleeping with Jameson and confronts him about it, but as it turns out, Mandy has really been dating Aarjev, sort of. He doesn't make a move on her. Is he nervous, or really in the friend zone. He does admit that he likes her, but it's to Drew and he's quickly shot down by him for not being "good enough" and told that Mandy simply used him.
Drew has shot himself in the foot once again, and goes a step further when he tells Mandy a not so true version of what had happened the night before.
Then, it would appear that Drew totally hits bottom. During somewhat of a moment with Laurel, he appears that he just can't commit saying nothing and everything at the same time, and minutes later confronting Jameson for dating Mandy, which is totally untrue and makes a huge scene that eventually costs Drew his job and embarrasses Mandy enough that she decides to go back home with her parents.
The curve has reached it's valley at around page 95 and it's on the upswing from here on it with Drew, and with a kickstart from Laurel, sets things right not only between him and her, but with him and Mandy, Mandy and Aarjev, and Jameson.
Drew works as a character because he's got an issue that anyone with a younger (and worse yet, hot) sister can attest to. He has to be in protective mode, quite a bit. Now, this is a film we're talking about so things have to be elevated to the Nth degree, but at it's core this is a pretty common problem for a lot of guys. And the fact that when we first meet him, he's leading the kind of life many guys would like to have, only to have it crumble due to his protectiveness, well, you can't help but sympathize.
As the script rolls on, we start to get a little more in touch with the character, knowing that he really does care for Mandy and it's not just him being a fun killer. He really wants what's best for her, which is made clear when he reconciles with Aarjev, who despite being much lower on the social scale is the best fit for her. And then with Laurel, he has his troubles in the beginning, but that eventually works itself out as Drew grows more as a person.
I don't think somebody with money looked at the page and said "That's a character that needs to be on the screen!", but I do think somebody looked at the inner workings of the story itself and that this poor bastard goes through something that millions of others go through. It's a universal plight of brothers everywhere. Something that people can easily identify with, and something that people will go to see, whther they're the protective brother or the protected sister.
I'm going on and on and on here, and I'm sure I've gone off track a couple times, so I'll just leave this as it is for now.
By chance, if you haven't read this yet, and you need the word spoiler then:
SPOILER!!!! SPOILER! SPOILER!!!!
I'm into the first 30 pages of this and I must say, it's not going to be hard to follow the rules on this one and heap praise upon this script-- about all of the things it's doing RIGHT!!!
Whereas there may have been groans in Countdown, I will be interested to look back on this thread after I get my own views out on the boards without getting swayed (again, I'm not going to read anything here until I get down my initial impressions).
***You might want to ignore the following and scroll down to the header on character, but these were my initial impressions on the first 30 pages.
General Impressions
The prototypes of the doting parents at the beginning of this are a wonderful way to begin as we see Mandy leaving behind childhood for the big city and whatever might lie in store for her.
No time is wasted in finding this out. And the big city reveals itself in a Jamaican Guy who makes off with a couple of her bags in a clever little incident keeping us entertained until we find out what the story is all about. It hooks us even before the hook with conflict and the unexpected.
We leave Mandy and her friend Laurel for awhile to establish "The World".
That world that Mandy is entering into is clearly defined by the sleazy, but rich lifestyle of her brother, Drew and by pages 5/6, we're being shown the "mixing business with pleasure" angle that Drew plays so well. He comes out of this scene on top of his game: eating shrimp and drinking champagne.
Again, no time is wasted in this party however because it's here that we learn about "the intern bingo game" thereby we are moving along and establishing the set up. By the end of page 9, the foreshadowed difficulties between Drew and Davis hits us as Drew's arrogance in the "girl getting game" is demonstrated when he x's Davis' bingo card on the one girl he missed. Davis is introduced before page 10 and so it's clear he's not straggling in as a late comer.
From pages 10-20 we get to see the relationship between Mandy and Drew and enjoy their characters. Also, we see Mandy's impact on Drew's scuzzy apartment.
As we move into page 20, we're there!!! Wall Street and we're solidly into that feel of excitement that Mandy has for it all.
Now we're really getting into it. The story is rising. On page 22, when Mandy strolls in and Drew realizes that his sister is getting ogled by "the tired and jaded" suits who've been around the block too many times, we're there!!! Where? Well, maybe not quite... We're very close to the key incident which I think happens two thirds down page #25 where Davis draws an X in the air at Drew and we all know what that means!!! It sums up the premise: This story is about X's. Well, okay, maybe not X's, but you know what I mean-- and that's the title isn't it.
So we've got a story about two guys who want the same thing (to win at bingo) and a girl who hasn't learned yet "what" it is all her "fans" want-- but she naively believes it's her brother, looking out for her. Te-he-he!!!
But what else? We've got the complication and personal dramatic need of Drew: beyond his manly drives, and still part of the set up, even before what I deem to be the key incident, is part of the initiating incident (pg 24) where Landon, his boss says:
"I know. I've got bills to prove it. Look... you're my best guy. But this is the last bender that I can push through. Close Jameson, or Davis is gonna get a shot at him."
Clearly, the heat is on Drew to get the big business deal and as mentioned: His x. While Davis has the same problems doesn't he? But he doesn't stand to lose this "big fish" account.
What we've got is a classic challenge scenario and Mandy so far, is in the dark to all of this. Interesting!!! What will she do when she finds out that she's part of a game? Might she fall for Davis? Will Drew ever turn a new leaf? Will he get the Jameson account? What about Laurel? We've got lots of questions-- yes indeedee and they need to be answered. So yes! The writer's done a fine job in the set up!
MAIN CHARACTER
The main character is Drew. He's finely tuned in his attitude toward his rich and sleazy lifestyle. He's funny and likeable even if he is loose with himself and has an inflated opinion of himself.
I think his character development will come from his protection of his sister-- when he's on a different side of things, but we'll see.
The writer definitely follows the scene advice of: Come in late and leave early.
Drew has something to learn. We can feel it and that's one of the reasons it makes his character appealing.
I'm going to leave this for now. I've got more I'd like to add regarding the dialogue, but I'm going to give it a break for now.
I just finished reading the first 40 pages, so tired i will finish it later tonight.
But there is something to say. I definitely like Drew's character till now, the script is funny.
I'd say Act I finishes on page 23 when all the guys stare at Mandy in the slow motion scene. I think that's the time when Drew acknowledges that her sister can be a "victim" and he knows those looks on the others face.
I'm into the first 30 pages…these were my initial impressions on the first 30 pages.
You do realize that breaking a rule automatically volunteers you to lead the next Script Club?
Hey everyone,
The thing about who is the main character was really just a conversation starter. I think the main character is obviously Drew. Although I have to say, Mandy often competed for the role. To me, they were both sort of main characters. This is really a story about the brother and sister relationship.
But yes, Drew is the main character and the story focuses more on his end of the relationship.
First off, I’ll say that overall I really like the story. And I think it’s the perfect script for this particular exercise. I think it has a lot of its components laid out in such a way as to make it easy for us to study as a group. It has a lot of ingredients of a standard rom-com but I think being focused on a brother/sister relationship added a little freshness to it.
I didn’t mention the premise as an initial subject and I think that’s something to discuss here early on as well. The premise of a brother who plays the field, basically treating women as though they’re insignificant sex toys, only to realize that technically his sister falls into that same category when it comes to his guy friends and co-workers, is nothing new. However, a lot of times that premise is sort of a throwaway joke. (Who’s that hot chick? Hey man, that’s my sister!)
What we have here is a little bit deeper of an exploration into that. (Hey, that really is my sister and I don’t really want anything to happen to her.)
Starting right off the top; something interesting that I noted is that we have the introduction of Mandy on page 1. (I love her parents by the way.)
Drew’s introduction occurs on page 5. We know there’s an impending tension between these two because Drew forgot to pick Mandy up.
But the actual first meeting doesn’t happen until the top of page 11. Exactly on page 10, we see that drew has just realized he’s forgotten Mandy and now is in a rush. This forces the reader to read past page 10. Even though the actual initial meeting between Drew and Mandy was somewhat anticlimactic, it was still structured more for the purpose of stringing the reader along than actually wowing them.
I noticed that all throughout the script, the action was often structured more for the purpose of luring the reader from page to page.
For a time, I thought Mandy was going to be reduced to a mere object. In the early stages, after she began working as an intern, when all the guys were drooling over her, it seemed as though her character was going to be reduced. From page 1 it seemed as though Mandy were the main character. It’s almost as if her character was temporarily reduced to make room to establish Drew more as the main character.
But specifically regarding Drew:
The initial setup is rather simple. He’s the party guy; a Wall Street hot shot who likes to spend money and close deals, with strippers as much as clients. Women and sex are just part of the daily routine.
Then of course his sister becomes an item on the menu and now our hero is thrown into a crisis. It’s not a crisis of conscience initially. At first, it’s purely visceral. His gut reaction is to keep those horny bastards off his sister.
Then he finally attempts to just “put his foot down.” (I love the veto -- haha. And the “Man-Law.”)
Over time he descends almost into obsession. Maybe the “almost” shouldn’t be there. He goes from brotherly to almost fatherly protectiveness. Again, maybe the “almost” shouldn’t be there.
The next step is to go from protection to outright trying to control his sister’s life. This proves his undoing. He loses his job and costs his sister an important job.
This is where our hero falls. He’s lost his job. He loses his sister. He loses all control. It’s reflected by the apartment returning to its messy disheveled state. But this time it’s different. It’s not the apartment of a man who is too busy living the high life to clean his apartment. He’s there. He’s not going out anymore. He’s not cleaning it, or shaving, or taking care of himself, because he’s essentially hit rock bottom. He hasn’t just lost the new life he’s formed with his sister; he’s lost the old life. He’s passed the point of no return. He can’t go back to the way it was before.
Now it’s time for our hero to be redeemed. He corrects his behavior mostly through the use of apologies. He apologizes to his sister. And he apologizes to Jameson. His apology to his sister had some genuinely touching moments and the apology to Jameson was sufficiently grandstand enough for a finale. It was on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange and it had some funny moments with Jameson’s sisters.
I thought Drew had a fairly standard story arc, almost what you might call “textbook.” That’s one of the reasons I really think this was a really good script to study. It’s good to see the way someone took “the rules” so to speak and fit the story into them.
I pretty much agree with Mike totally about the main character as far as appeal. He wasn’t the sort of character about whom I could see some executive saying to himself, “This guy should be on screen.” Drew is initially a character I’ve seen a thousand times. I saw the story more as a sort of gimmick initially. But when you read the script, I think it has enough substance and clever little touches to make it work.
How successful it might be depends. I could see this as having a sort of Meet The Parents kind of appeal if done properly. Or it could just be another date movie that gets lost in the shuffle. I think at the very least if people don’t have high hopes, they’ll be pleasantly surprised and if they have higher hopes (high for this type of movie), they’ll leave satisfied.
I’m excited to hear the thoughts of others.
By the way; did anyone think of me when you got to the sexual harassment training scene?
I’m teasing with you. I just don’t want a bunch of “I started this” posts. I know it’s hard to resist. You start reading. You have something to say. I understand. But it’s also nice to look at the script as a whole.
Don’t worry about it. Although you will of course have to be tickle tortured.
The thing about who is the main character was really just a conversation starter. I think the main character is obviously Drew. Although I have to say, Mandy often competed for the role. To me, they were both sort of main characters. This is really a story about the brother and sister relationship.
Yeah, I totally agree with that Breanne. At times the roles reverse and Drew is the foil for Mandy. Overall though yeah, due to who changes the most, who has the most to lose and the title - the main character is definately Drew.
I liked also how alot of the end scenes were mirror images of the beginning.
Mandy saving Drew from getting run over. The big speech at the end pretty much being the opposite of his speech regarding intern bingo.
I agree with the whole 'text book' comment too. I didn't do any page counting as far as act breaks and the like go, but I'm pretty sure they were where we are advised to have them -- it certainly felt right. Pacing was really good.
Personally, this isn't a film I would be excited about seeing. Just I think it's been done many, many times before and better. But there is the original premise of brother protecting sister. I think that's the main reason it got picked up and although it doesn't interest me too much it has got a big target audience.
Did anyone else think the Drew/Aarjev relationship was more friendly rivalry than outright dislike? I think it was Drew's comment about how much he digged his latte after we first meet Aarjev. I always felt there was a mutual respect thing going on there.
Does anyone know how far into production this is. Just curious, with the current financial crisis on Wall Street this may not be something that would play well in theaters...
But the actual first meeting doesn’t happen until the top of page 11...This forces the reader to read past page 10...it was still structured more for the purpose of stringing the reader along...
This is the comment I was going to make if I did not see it first.
For those of you still reading, look at how many of the scenes are little cliffhangers in themselves -- drawing you forward.
Also, notice the tight, active writing. I actually started looking for "ing" words in the descriptive passages -- and really had to search to find them.
And just look at all the asides to the reader. Does it detract from the reading? Are they "unfilmable?" No, I say! Not in the least -- it is about tone and feeling -- and I think the actors will know just what to do with those passages.
I am really starting to detect the smell of taint around that particular "rule".
This was not quite as dirty as the title would lead you to think. But then, most of those really rude comedies do end up going for the heartwarming thing in the end, so Ebert can say, "it was surprisingly touching."
The writer understood that, and she nailed it in many places. This one has the recent comedy "formula" grafted into its DNA, for sure.
But it does work on the page -- and as Brea points out, it is designed to draw you forward into the story, turning pages.
I wish I could pinpoint in exact words why, but maybe we will have that figured out by the time we're finished with the discussion of this script.
I know that the writing style is something that would be frowned upon if it was posted at SS and written by one of us, but the script is tight enough and funny enough that I totally ignore all of those "no no's".
Descriptions like "a billion dollar frat house that runs on stress and testosterone" does not only give me a clear picture, but I can feel it and even smell it. I think this script was great. Lots and lots for us to learn here.
I thought the use of 'cut to' in the action lines was good for pacing.
Like you say Pia, if someone did that for a script they posted here some people would jump on it, but I think overall people would see why certain techniques were getting used.
The one thing I found annoying, was the use of underlining. Not wanting to get onto things we didn't like about it, but more just a question mark over that part of the script.
The writer definitely follows the scene advice of: Come in late and leave early.
I’ve never had much problem with the enter late, leave early thing. I’ve always felt it was a terrific idea that really helped move things along. But I think this is an important point to be made for anyone who has struggled with this issue.
…look at how many of the scenes are little cliffhangers in themselves -- drawing you forward.
Bert, I’m glad you said that. I think you’ve pointed out a very interesting aspect here. Regarding the cut tos at the ends of scenes, at first I felt they seemed very unnecessary. I felt the scene could have simply been ended earlier.
For example;
“Karl and R.J. flush as Drew flashes his smile for miles. We cut off his expectant grin to…”
At first I thought; Why not just cut off that last sentence? It makes no real difference except that it would conserve space.
But going back to Bert’s point, does this provide this scene with a small sort of cliffhanger that effectively leads the reader to the next scene? It may not seem like it at first glance but the script as a whole certainly seems to have that effect.
And just look at all the asides to the reader. Does it detract from the reading? Are they "unfilmable?" No, I say! Not in the least -- it is about tone and feeling -- and I think the actors will know just what to do with those passages.
Personally, I’ve always agreed with putting little “unfilmables” in a script. I’ve always felt little insights into a character’s thoughts or feelings spiced a script up and made it more interesting to read. But I’ve always been more conservative with it than what we see here. Maybe it’s time to let loose some more.
2) Read the entire script before commenting on it.
It reminds me of that test a person took around grade 5 where it says, "Read the whole page and all the questions before taking the test and at the bottom of the page it says, "Don't take the test!"
Anyways, I've learned.
Well, I've read this script and wasn't compelled to skim any of it.
I'm going to attend to some more notes before I read any other opinions here.
"1) Has reading this script changed the way you will write in the future? If so, how?"
No. The way I write fits me perfectly. The terser the better. Less chance for me to screw up language wise. I'm pretty sure I will not start using the "and we cut to..." thing though. That was the only thing that bugged the read for me, besides the ending of this script.
2) Has reading this script changed the way you will review the scripts of other writers? If so, how?"
Not this script in particular. I have changed in the last year though, I think. I try to look at the story and not really the writing. I usually only make comments about the writing if I feel it hurts the read. The writing style did not slow down or hurt the script in this one. It enhanced the read.
1) Has reading this script changed the way you will write in the future? If so, how?
2) Has reading this script changed the way you will review the scripts of other writers? If so, how?
Answers to 1 and 2 are the same, with respect to the "unfilmables".
They will not "change" the style in as much as they reinforce something I have already come to suspect myself.
It is all about the reading experience. The script must be as entertaining to read as you can make it. If a few "asides" to the reader accomplish that, and you are confident in your decision to incorporate them, go for it.
I will still point out "asides" that simply do not work -- and detract -- but as for the rest, I leave 'em alone. In my writing, or that of anyone else around here.
Like Steve, though, I still wonder about the underlines that seem to litter these scripts. This is the second pro script in a row with those. Weird. I won't use them...pretty sure, anyway.
1) Has reading this script changed the way you will write in the future? If so, how?
2) Has reading this script changed the way you will review the scripts of other writers? If so, how?
1) Although I thought the writing was fairly solid, I can't say that it will change the way I write. I'm still working on developing my own style, and there was nothing in the writing here that would make me steer from that. There are things in here that confirm I'm on the right track though.
2) No again. I comment on what I comment on, mainly the story, and that varies from script to script.
My own question...
After reading this, do you find it to be a romantic comedy?
The more I think about it, the less I believe it actually is. Sure, it does stress on some relationship things, but the real relationship here is between a brother and sister, and that strays a bit too far from things in my opinion.
After reading this, do you find it to be a romantic comedy?
The more I think about it, the less I believe it actually is. Sure, it does stress on some relationship things, but the real relationship here is between a brother and sister, and that strays a bit too far from things in my opinion.
I thought it was a comedy with romantic elements, but not a rom-com.
Well, it looks like my questions aren’t going to spark much conversation. It seems most are satisfied with the direction they’re going with their writing.
To answer my own question:
I’m definitely reevaluating myself. I can’t see myself ever writing exactly the way of the last two pro scripts I’ve read because I haven’t found either to be particularly memorable. And I’ve got this thing about trying to write stuff that will be remembered.
But it’s definitely changed me as a writer.
I think to some degree the books I’ve read regarding screenwriting have hurt me. Don’t get me wrong; I’m very thankful for the things I’ve learned. Those “how to” books served a valuable purpose. They helped me “cut the fat” so to speak. But I think they ultimately led me to maybe cut the wrong things sometimes, or add the wrong things at others.
In other words; I’m not looking at changing my voice as a writer, but how to more closely achieve it. I see myself becoming a more relaxed writer, less technical.
I think I’ve gotten pretty good at keeping scenes lean and tying things together. Even when, for example, a line might seem insignificant at first, it usually connects to something later. There’s very little fat in my writing.
But I also see where I can maybe loosen up and be a little more dynamic with description. Spice it up a little.
I don’t think I’ll ever adopt the cut tos in the description. But I understand their purpose. I think there are better, more creative ways to serve that purpose - but I recognize the value of serving that purpose.
I feel the same about the underlining. Often in this script, I felt the wrong things were underlined or the wrong words were emphasized. So I believe I’ll stick to my usual style of having a minimal amount of emphasizing words, etc. And I’ll look at more creative ways to emphasize things in description than underlining them (although I feel this author was reasonable with the underlining as opposed to Countdown which I felt got ridiculous with them).
But I think this has definitely affected the way I’ll write my next script.
I’m going to look at swifter scenes, even though they may ultimately be less charismatic or creative than what I would normally write. And I’m going to look at how each scene can lure the reader to the next scene; how I can “force” the reader to read on.
Rather than look at it as a chore to try and inject new life into old ideas, I’m going to try and look at it as a challenge. In other words, I’m going to try and have it both ways; I’m going to try and write more in alignment with what Hollywood is buying but still “Breannize” it.
I have no intentions of compromising myself artistically because I’m not sure I can actually do that. It’s just not in me to do so. I have to write and I have to be me. But on the other hand, I want to try new things and I love the challenge. I’ll do anything it takes to be the best writer I can be and I think reevaluating the way I write can - and will - help achieve that goal.
I just don’t see how this experience can not change me.
After reading this, do you find it to be a romantic comedy?
The more I think about it, the less I believe it actually is. Sure, it does stress on some relationship things, but the real relationship here is between a brother and sister, and that strays a bit too far from things in my opinion.
I mentioned earlier that I thought this had a lot of elements of a rom-com but really is a story about the brother/sister relationship.
Drew’s relationship with Laurel is never really explored and it never reaches any sort of deeper level. She comes off as slutty and although Drew does too, I never really felt any real connection between them. Not because the script wasn’t well written but because it didn’t seem to me that that avenue was really ever a serious avenue for the story.
Mandy’s relationship with Aarjev is not anything I ever really took seriously either. I had no idea she was interested in him until she blatantly said so. I kept thinking it was going to be revealed that he was gay or something. And as someone else said earlier, I took the relationship between Aarjev and Drew as one of friendly rivalry, not bitter enemies. But I never really felt Aarjev was a “match” for Mandy.
I actually thought Davis might turn out to be a really nice guy in the end. When he made mention of overriding Drew’s veto for love, I thought that was moving and that Davis might turn out to have been full of crap about all his conquests or something. But then his character was diminished. Davis never really came through as a villain for me. It was suggested he would steal Drew’s account. It was suggested he would f*** Drew’s sister. He really didn’t make much effort to do either. Then it was suggested that perhaps he might have genuine feelings for Mandy. Then it was like he basically disappeared into the scenery.
So I never really saw any romantic relationship develop for either Drew or Mandy. Not any of any real substance. Just the brother/sister relationship. And I think that really prevents this from being a rom-com.
I fact, I think the fact that this isn’t really a rom-com and doesn’t have any real romance in it will probably hurt it ultimately.
"Well, it looks like my questions aren’t going to spark much conversation." You need to serve refreshments to get this party going.
On the brother/sister relationship part, I thought Drew went a little overboard by constantly talking about his little sister this and that and that also made me groan at the very end at the NYSE.
I agree that the story is about Drew and Mandy's relationship. The main character is Drew and I was disappointed that he admitted in the end that he's always going to stay the way he is and that he can't help it. It would have been better I think if he had made some sort of Wedding Crasher turnaround. And for some reason, I did picture Vince Vaughn as Drew. haha
I'm going to try my best not to digress here and stick with Drew's character and also his character as it shines in relation to Mandy.
First off consider this:
The main character doesn't even SHOW UP UNTIL PAGE 5! And when we find him, he's all Drew-- The Player with his playmates.
His intro is clean and understandable. His age isn't mentioned and neither is his hair color. It doesn't need to be. It's not important here. What we do see is the heart and soul of Drew in "his element". We've got a real scene; not boring descriptions about his jaw line and his suit. It doesn't matter here and the writer knows it. What matters is how he enters the show-- and that happens as a contraidiction to what Mandy thinks:
"He's toned down his act. A lot."
We, the audience are given information that Mandy doesn't have yet, and so this supplies a kind of tension and excitement as well as a question: What will her reaction be when she finds out?
So Drew's arrival as a character comes late, which is typical of him and this placement is perfect!
In this particular script, the writer uses strong dialogue to illuminate his character. This is clear on page 6 with the first machine gun speech that he gives starting with:
"You're loyal. And I respect that..."
Right here and now, this is the chance for the actor to shine. It's time for us to marvel at Drew's smoothness-- to even admire it. Wow!!! But we can see it... What a pile of *#!... He's full of it isn't he? With his smile-- it comes to life and we almost see that manufactured star glinting off his teeth. THIS is character!!! It's opportunity for the actor! It reads like writing for screen!!!
Ok, so we know who he is and it gets worse/better... with his "Karate chop thats!" and kicking poor Theo and his "Grizzly speeches".
The fact that we're going to see some kind of transition in Drew is foreshadowed in Mandy's efforts to straighten things up in his apartment. We also get to see the friendly relationship of Mandy and Drew before things turn weird.
We see Drew's concern definitely show here:
Pg 32:
"This city's dangerous Mandy! And frankly, your lack of concern for your surroundings is really starting to scare me! There are guys playing intern bingo and people like Davis trying to "X" the center square--" (And he's an authority on this!)
At this point when Drew says that something scares him, it's an obvious turning point. When has anything ever scared him? This is the beginning of: Everything that I am, I don't want you to be.
By page 46, when Drew is asking to sponsor a Sexual Harasment Seminar, we're shown just how much he's willing to give up in the name of saving his sister from the sharp New York claws looking to X another square.
Pg 53 Character Arc Alert: He's crazy!!!! Absolutely crazy!!! And we know where he gets it from. What nut photo-shops a picture to induce false hermaphroditic notions? Drew. That's who.
Pg 66 "Karate Chop that Motherfuckers!" he says, but the silence that follows his triumph is deafening. **Note our smooth player is starting to look like a bit of a freak.
But what does this external stuff have to do with character?
Well, for one thing, everything that happens externally is driven by internal desires and this is directly related to character. Whether it's "real", as in the person is honest in his actions, or false, in that he's faking it and lying or putting up a front-- the actions are the character that the public sees. (Sometimes the audience sees hidden desires and fears, that the other characters in the movie don't know or see and this makes for good tension.)
Has Drew changed that much yet though? Well, he's changed enough (I actually think he's just showing his true colors) to get in a fight with Big Fish Jameson, destroy his party and all for the love of his sister!
What I'm thinking is that the real Drew has always been there underneath and that he has just begun to see THE REAL LIGHT of the matter due to his sister and-- in the end, he realizes: all sisters (especially the good looking ones) are suffering because of guys JUST LIKE HIM. All of the guys that Drew has seen as a danger to Mandy have served as a mirror for him.
Has Drew really changed? I think he's definitely seen the light and it's not 100%, but we can guess that he might some day be driving in a mini van with Laurel and a couple of wee-wones.
Ah ha, I could see that happening alright. He's not quite the same grizzly anymore.
The main character is Drew and I was disappointed that he admitted in the end that he's always going to stay the way he is and that he can't help it. It would have been better I think if he had made some sort of Wedding Crasher turnaround.
I totally agree with you. I was disappointed that Drew didn’t ultimately change. He sort of bent due to the circumstances but then, as he did all throughout the story, he just goes right back to his old ways. He was ultimately incorrigible.
But that brings up a good point: Is a little “moral” at the end of a story better than a full character arc? At least in terms of salability?
Has Drew really changed? I think he's definitely seen the light and it's not 100%, but we can guess that he might some day be driving in a mini van with Laurel and a couple of wee-wones.
Ah ha, I could see that happening alright. He's not quite the same grizzly anymore.
Here’s another good point about Drew’s ultimate character arc. Is the author, rather than actually showing him change, just insinuating it?
So maybe a character’s arc doesn’t have to tie up neatly at the end if there’s enough hope presented that the arc will continue.
Did anyone else think the Drew/Aarjev relationship was more friendly rivalry than outright dislike? I think it was Drew's comment about how much he digged his latte after we first meet Aarjev. I always felt there was a mutual respect thing going on there.
This is the comment I was going to make if I did not see it first.
For those of you still reading, look at how many of the scenes are little cliffhangers in themselves -- drawing you forward.
And just look at all the asides to the reader. Does it detract from the reading? Are they "unfilmable?" No, I say! Not in the least -- it is about tone and feeling -- and I think the actors will know just what to do with those passages.
I am really starting to detect the smell of taint around that particular "rule".
The writer understood that, and she nailed it in many places. This one has the recent comedy "formula" grafted into its DNA, for sure.
But it does work on the page -- and as Brea points out, it is designed to draw you forward into the story, turning pages.
I absolutely agree here. Everything draws us forward in a chain!!! The script is written as a series of incidents, but not random ones. For example: I loved the scene where the Jamaican guy comes up and offers to help with bags-- a huge smile on his face that has her raising a smile too-- until it cracks when he tears off. Gosh oh goley or gee!!! Hollywood? Can you hear me? PLEASE PLAY FRANK SINATRA'S NEW YORK NEW YORK here.
1) Has reading this script changed the way you will write in the future? If so, how?
Yes, absolutely. I think for myself the struggle will be to narrow the focus of my scripts-- because I try and tackle too much at this point and so I think that this script does a good job of isolating just "what" it wants to accomplish and then goes to work with that. We see what we need to see to tell its unique story and that's all-- so it's tight. Working on tightness (particularly structural tightness) is extremely important and for this reason, I think this is an excellent script to study.
This script shows how one can get a lot of clarity out of a short scene. For instance, back the the Jamaican guy example:
A lot of writers might show New York in a series of shots, but we see a good snapshot here right off the bat and later woven into the script: Before getting on the subway, "They can smell fear!" Where Drew is sprayed with mace; when he gets bonked because of he's thought to be a pervert in the bushes. There are numerous little New Yorkities spicing up the script.
2) Has reading this script changed the way you will review the scripts of other writers? If so, how?
Yes, it confirms what I've always suspected, but didn't have the experience to know for sure: That tone is just as important as blatant and only "sometimes applicable rules".
Asides from the writer can help with the mind frame that needs to go up on screen. Even if it doesn't seem filmable, it may be a hint for the actor as in:
They're batshit crazy, but she loves them.
This isn't a thing explicitly, but it's definitely a character and reactionary moment from both sides.
How might that be expressed?
Well, how about little bats flying over the heads of Mom and Dad as seen by Mandy?
It could be expressed in her making faces as they turn away for a moment.
Any number of things could happen that aren't expressed in a hundred page script and I think it's worthy of noting that.
There are many other points on pacing and structure, but I'll leave it at that for now.
I try to look at the story and not really the writing.
This is something that intrigues me. I often hear people say they want to focus on the story only. But what about the story are you going to focus on?
For example; if you see someone with big blocks of dialogue, are you going to tell them they should break them up? I always did that in the past if they were really big blocks. I would have said they slowed the story down.
But right here in I Want To ____ Your Sister, there are giant blocks of dialogue broken up with only parenthesized actions like “off his look.” This is done all throughout the entire script. And I thought it slowed down the flow of the script sometimes.
But as far as story issues exclusively; I thought this script had story issues. I thought it had a dead end with the Davis character. I thought all the “romances” were dead ends. And as you yourself said, you didn’t think Drew changed enough in the end.
But no issues prevented this script from selling.
If this was an unproduced script posted here, do you really feel that you would treat it the same as you would knowing it had sold? Because I’m relatively certain I wouldn’t, knowing what I know now.
I’m admittedly questioning the script advice I should give in the future. There are a lot of people who say they want to concentrate on story and not format. And I think they have a point. What I’m wondering now is; does story advice really matter?
Does it matter if something slows the story down for you personally? Are we really looking at scripts objectively? Are we looking at them in terms of whether or not they can sell? Or are we looking at them in terms that are only important to writers artistically?
After reading this, do you find it to be a romantic comedy?
The more I think about it, the less I believe it actually is. Sure, it does stress on some relationship things, but the real relationship here is between a brother and sister, and that strays a bit too far from things in my opinion.
"I actually thought Davis might turn out to be a really nice guy in the end. When he made mention of overriding Drew’s veto for love, I thought that was moving and that Davis might turn out to have been full of cr** about all his conquests or something. But then his character was diminished. Davis never really came through as a villain for me. It was suggested he would steal Drew’s account. It was suggested he would f*** Drew’s sister. He really didn’t make much effort to do either. Then it was suggested that perhaps he might have genuine feelings for Mandy. Then it was like he basically disappeared into the scenery.
I thought so too!!! I actually thought that the struggle was going to be between Drew and Davis in the early stages. At first, I thought that Davis was going to be the antagonist.
I thought so too!!! I actually thought that the struggle was going to be between Drew and Davis in the early stages. At first, I thought that Davis was going to be the antagonist.
When Davis mentioned overriding the veto for love, I thought that was a stroke of genius on the author’s part. It was very romantic. I thought he might actually end up helping Drew in the end. But that just shows you that what one reader thinks is brilliant, others might not care about.
In regard to the lengthy dialogues, I was actually thinking while reading that it was something I mentioned in Bee Girl... I thought, well I guess I'm wrong.
Regarding the story itself, I think it was pretty good, but seemed at times as if I'd seen it before and yes there were some questions regarding the story. However, this is a comedy and as such I thought it was smart, funny and tightly written. In a comedy I want to see/hear some jokes. I thought the dialogue was really good and the action paragraphs with all the asides kept the feel of a comedy in between the verbal and visual comedy. It kept me interested and I read it straight through.
If this was an unproduced script posted here, do you really feel that you would treat it the same as you would knowing it had sold? Because I’m relatively certain I wouldn’t, knowing what I know now.
If this were an unproduced script here, I would say that it's a damn good script. I might point out things here and there that I thought seemed off, but it's really no different than sitting, watching a movie, and wondering why they did a certain thing.
Quoted from Breanne
I’m admittedly questioning the script advice I should give in the future. There are a lot of people who say they want to concentrate on story and not format. And I think they have a point. What I’m wondering now is; does story advice really matter?
I think story advice is important, especially when you consider that it's what is ultimately going to show on the screen...the story. The things that are interweaved into the prose play a factor as well, since it helps give the actors, set designers, etc. etc., a clearer idea of the writer's vision.
And by the way... after I read this script I thought the title didn't fit. That's not really what the story is about. An attention grabber for sure, but not exactly a good hint of the story itself. I wouldn't be surprised if the final film will have a different title.
In regard to the lengthy dialogues, I was actually thinking while reading that it was something I mentioned in Bee Girl... I thought, well I guess I'm wrong.
Yes you did but what I’m asking is; are you going to keep doing that in the future? Some of the dialogue blocks in I Want To ____ Your Sister are larger than the dialogue blocks in Bee Girl and Bee Girl has a noir voiceover gumshoe, which makes the blocks expected.
What I’m asking is; if this script were posted as unproduced, would you say something about the dialogue blocks? Would you still consider that an issue? Because for me personally, I’m thinking to myself, how can they hurt? Pro scripts do it.
And that was just an example. I’m seriously wondering about the advice I give on scripts. I want to give good advice, not just personal advice. I’m wondering it we collectively as reviewers here are really looking at scripts objectively.
It's not so much about the size of the blocks as it is about the quality of the dialogue on the whole.
If the dialogue is well written, you'll breeze through those blocks like they were two sentences. On the other side of the coin, if the dialogue is terrible, two sentences can read like a paragraph.
If this were an unproduced script here, I would say that it's a damn good script. I might point out things here and there that I thought seemed off, but it's really no different than sitting, watching a movie, and wondering why they did a certain thing.
I understand. But would you, if this was posted in the unproduced section, say to the author that you think it’s ready to sell?
I think story advice is important, especially when you consider that it's what is ultimately going to show on the screen...the story. The things that are interweaved into the prose play a factor as well, since it helps give the actors, set designers, etc. etc., a clearer idea of the writer's vision.
I don’t want to be misunderstood. I’m not saying this isn’t a good script. I hope I’m not leaving that impression. Because I feel like that’s the way you’re taking it. What I’m wondering is whether or not people would recognize that this script is ready to be sold.
I understand. But would you, if this was posted in the unproduced section, say to the author that you think it’s ready to sell?
Absolutely. Some of my own scripts that I've pitched/sold weren't up to this quality.
Quoted from Breanne
I don’t want to be misunderstood. I’m not saying this isn’t a good script. I hope I’m not leaving that impression. Because I feel like that’s the way you’re taking it. What I’m wondering is whether or not people would recognize that this script is ready to be sold.
I was just answering your question about story advice being important.
In a comedy I want to see/hear some jokes...all the asides kept the feel of a comedy...I read it straight through.
That's just it. A script is a movie...and it isn't. A script is some twisted cross between a book and a movie. A comedy script needs to be funny -- in every aspect -- it needs to read funny.
One thing I kind of see now with this script (and Countdown, though to a lesser extent) is how a funny script needs to read funny -- an action script needs to read...well, action-y I guess. A horror script should read scary.
I guess I always knew that, but I see it a little clearer now, I think.
I think this sold largely because it reads really well, and it reads funny. I think it does, anyway.
Would it make a great movie? Eh -- there will probably need to be some changes along the way -- I will be very surprised if they aren't. But if you are sitting in a chair in your living room reading this script, you will be entertained.
Our scripts need to do that -- by hook or by crook -- they must entertain.
I was just answering your question about story advice being important.
I agree that good advice is important. I’m just not sure how to tell whether or not my advice is good advice or if it’s influenced by personal opinion.
If anyone of us posted this here, I would probably call it "Kick Ass"
I guess I just don’t share your confidence that I can tell a salable script. I certainly know when I personally think a script is great.
If this script was posted here in the unproduced section, I would think it was a great script. But I would probably recommend certain changes that I personally thought would improve it.
The problem with this particular case is that anyone who offered advice to improve this script could do more harm than good. This script sold. Therefore it’s salable - as it is - without any changes.
Does it matter if something slows the story down for you personally? Are we really looking at scripts objectively? Are we looking at them in terms of whether or not they can sell? Or are we looking at them in terms that are only important to writers artistically?
Breanne
Really good questions Breanne and I think they all need to hold our attention and we need to give weight to all of them.
Does something slow a story down or not? Let's look at:
Blocky Texts
The experienced writer knows when they're adding extra lines. They also know that those extra lines better serve a darn good purpose. I think it all has to do with the relationships and the balances of the "units of construction" (UOC = scenes, sequences, dialogue, montage...) that the writer uses. Ok, I just coined that term.
Let's say for instance, we REALLY DO WANT TO SLOW DOWN TIME. Cinematically, we might typically think in terms of simply writing, SLOW MO-- all well and good, but we might use other techniques and one of those techniques might be to write a blocky piece of text.
So here is where our skill comes in as writers when we critique. Just because something is blocky doesn't mean it's bad. Probability says that yes, it's bad, but we must be able to discern the nature in terms of the writing as a whole.
If the tension is inherently high, but we've got a lot of thick text, it might very well be excellent writing after all.
The Other Questions:
Are we looking at them in terms of whether or not they can sell? Or are we looking at them in terms that are only important to writers artistically?
I think the both are perfectly interconnected actually. I think many artists need to get over themselves and understand that we're all human and very much the same after all-- even though our points of views can be very different, the things that make great stories/movies great is that they strike the same chord with a large amount of people.
Now that's not to say there aren't the many faces of what's considered art. There will always be the hack vs. art debate that goes on and unique style that perhaps a lot of people are too thick to appreciate-- I understand that, but somehow, no matter what our style is, I think we need to figure out how to connect with our audience. Of course that comes after all of the basics of the apprenticeship.
Your question is really hard to answer in some ways and easy in others.
I think at the core of the art/business debate is that some people think that they have to sacrifice their art for business, but I don't think it's necessarily so. The reason is: I think that the heart of art is emotion and it's connecting with emotions that is the fuel that drives the $$$ in the industry.
But we have little more than a hundred pages to do that. It's very little space and very little time. Easier said than done.
If this script was posted here in the unproduced section, I would think it was a great script. But I would probably recommend certain changes that I personally thought would improve it.
So would I.
One thing I've learned from reading hundreds of scripts at MP is that I have fewer things to say about a great script than I do with the less than good ones. If you Breanne had posted this script here, I would call it Kick Ass, but in order to try to offer something other than Great scrip! Good Luck with it, I would try my hardest to find flaws and offer suggestions.
Don't they say there are no perfect scripts... or that No script is ever finished?
I agree that good advice is important. I’m just not sure how to tell whether or not my advice is good advice or if it’s influenced by personal opinion.
I think being able to differentiate what good advice is should fall on the writer though. There's no reason to limit the feedback you give just because you doubt it. What may seem like a throwaway comment to you, may actually be a great piece of feedback for the writer and vice versa. Obviously, something made that piece of feedback pop into your head. May as well share it.
Quoted from Breanne
I guess I just don’t share your confidence that I can tell a salable script. I certainly know when I personally think a script is great.
That's about all you can hope for in my opinion. If you think your script is constructed well enough and entertaining enough, then it should translate to thinking that the script can be sold. Whether or not you're wrong or right is ultimately a crap shoot.
I think being able to differentiate what good advice is should fall on the writer though. There's no reason to limit the feedback you give just because you doubt it. What may seem like a throwaway comment to you, may actually be a great piece of feedback for the writer and vice versa. Obviously, something made that piece of feedback pop into your head. May as well share it.
That's about all you can hope for in my opinion. If you think your script is constructed well enough and entertaining enough, then it should translate to thinking that the script can be sold. Whether or not you're wrong or right is ultimately a crap shoot.
This is excellent advice. Definitely share it!!! Even if you think it might not be quite right. It might jog something loose for the writer.
The problem with this particular case is that anyone who offered advice to improve this script could do more harm than good. This script sold. Therefore it’s salable - as it is - without any changes.
I haven't read the script yet (busy atm) but I just wanted to pipe in here. I think this is a misconception. Yes the script sold as it is but that doesn't mean it isn't going to change. More often than not scripts that sell are further developed based on the director's or producer's vision of the story. What they are buying is their own vision of the script, or the story - but even that is subject to change. It all depends on what was going through their head when they read it and what they were looking for. The reason they bought it has probably more to do with the time the script came across their desk than any other reason. Making changes to a script like this to improve readability, story structure, etc. would probably increase the chances of it being in the in box of someone's desk, therefore increasing the chance that it will be there at the right time to sell.
I haven't read the script yet (busy atm) but I just wanted to pipe in here. I think this is a misconception. Yes the script sold as it is but that doesn't mean it isn't going to change. More often than not scripts that sell are further developed based on the director's or producer's vision of the story. What they are buying is their own vision of the script, or the story - but even that is subject to change. It all depends on what was going through their head when they read it and what they were looking for. The reason they bought it has probably more to do with the time the script came across their desk than any other reason. Making changes to a script like this to improve readability, story structure, etc. would probably increase the chances of it being in the in box of someone's desk, therefore increasing the chance that it will be there at the right time to sell.
Michael, what you're saying here makes me think about the tremendous amount of writing talent we have on simplyscript... Why? because of the changes and evolutions that happen in scripts. And why do they happen? They happen when other minds enter into the process of development.
Just because a writer has chewed all the juice they can out of something, it doesn't mean that there aren't new sticks of gum out there.
I think that's why there are WRITING TEAMS. Some of the best writing I think comes from more than one person.
As I mentioned earlier, when considering the line: They're batshit crazy. I can easily see little bats flying above their heads and I might be one to write that in. It's not there, but the fact that it COULD be is maybe part of good writing too-- it allows for flexibility and expansion.
I haven't read the script yet (busy atm) but I just wanted to pipe in here. I think this is a misconception. Yes the script sold as it is but that doesn't mean it isn't going to change. More often than not scripts that sell are further developed based on the director's or producer's vision of the story. What they are buying is their own vision of the script, or the story - but even that is subject to change. It all depends on what was going through their head when they read it and what they were looking for. The reason they bought it has probably more to do with the time the script came across their desk than any other reason. Making changes to a script like this to improve readability, story structure, etc. would probably increase the chances of it being in the in box of someone's desk, therefore increasing the chance that it will be there at the right time to sell.
I didn’t mean that this script couldn’t be improved. But it’s obviously salable as it is. It sold. What I’m questioning is the objectivity with which we look at each other’s scripts. Do we offer advice that will make the script more salable? Do we really even have any idea what makes a script salable? Or do we just offer our personal opinions as to what we personally would like to see happen with a particular story?
Do we really even have any idea what makes a script salable? Or do we just offer our personal opinions as to what we personally would like to see happen with a particular story?
That's probably pretty much all we can do... None of us are pros or "in the business". We just do the best we can providing our on thoughts on the script.
I didn’t mean that this script couldn’t be improved. But it’s obviously salable as it is. It sold. What I’m questioning is the objectivity with which we look at each other’s scripts. Do we offer advice that will make the script more salable? Do we really even have any idea what makes a script salable? Or do we just offer our personal opinions as to what we personally would like to see happen with a particular story?
Of course it's all personal opinion. Though it's likely some think they are doing it to help salability. But actually, at least IMO, the only thing that helps with sales of a script is timing. Even the worst written script could sell if someone is interested in the story at that time because the story can always be developed further. So really, the only person who can make suggestions that could help you with the salability is someone who is interested in buying it but wants the following changes. Or possibly if you were to get a lead that so and so is looking for xyz type scripts so you should make a change to make your script more xyz - but you still have to get it on so and so's desk.
That's probably pretty much all we can do... None of us are pros or "in the business". We just do the best we can providing our on thoughts on the script.
The good news is my reviews are going to get a lot shorter -- haha
In an earlier post I mentioned this. I wonder if this script was just now entering the market.... would there be any interest in this? The way I see it is that this script unfortunately comes at a time when a LOT of people are losing their life savings and retirement money and we are on the brink of a financial collapse. I can't see anyone wanting to watch these Wall Street Raiders on screen doing exactly what a lot of people think is the cause of "the financial" problem.... I bet if this film was already finished, the release would definitely be on hold...
That's probably pretty much all we can do... None of us are pros or "in the business". We just do the best we can providing our on thoughts on the script.
Yes, this is true. The best that we can bring is a professional attitude even if we're not there yet-- and sadly, we may never be there, but that doesn't mean we don't try. We must have fun with what we do and the same time-- we must take it seriously.
Hey! Maybe we're like Drew! We want to mix business with pleasure!
Seriously, don't we? When we have the art versus business argument: Isn't this the same struggle?
However it is that we want to go about it: we want to be SUCCESSFUL -- another degree or so higher: some of us want to BE GREAT. Maybe we think we can re-invent the wheel?!
So we can have all kinds of delusions perhaps; only the main thing we should ask ourselves is: What do we want to accomplish in these hundred pages?
If we can nail the answer in every single word that lands on the pages of the script, and if the answer GIVES SOMETHING to whatever audience we're gearing it for, then I think we've succeeded.
I think that this is where this script succeeded. The idea that many of the X's in the intern bingo game are also someone's sister is an excellent premise.
Someone-- I can't remember who, ( I'm really sorry) mentioned the importance of premise. It's very true. The importance of the premise and how it's executed, meaning: the components that are highlighted to support it are the bones of the script.
This script doesn't waver all over the place like an amateurs might. It stays on task in its mission.
This is what I appreciate here and I'm thankful to all of you who are taking the time to study this as a group. This is an excellent thread.
Okay, let me see if I can spur some more conversation here.
At this point, I’d like to sort of open the floor a little. Is there anything in particular anyone would like to discuss about the story before we move on?
I know there are some people who may be planning to join in but haven’t read the script yet. So I’d like to stay focused on the script until we see if anyone else is going to join us.
I would eventually like to get into the subject of marketing. Verdugo made a comment in the last thread that what the Hollywood screenwriters had over the amateurs was that they knew how to make a deal. I think a lot of amateur writers really don’t know what to do with their script after they’re done with it. I think it would make a good subject of discussion.
So are there any subject suggestions? I want to make sure everyone gets the most out of this.
Sorry i see you moved with the discussion but i can't be here as much to follow. So here it is my review. Yes Breanne i read it .
It was a good read and I enjoyed it alot. There's so much to talk about this script but the first thing I should point is that the secret of this script is to look how simple it is.. Clearly this is no Sixth Sense, but in the romantic comedy genre it will work fine.
I see some of you thought of why executives would put their money on this one. I think because it’s a fresh take on the comedy genre. Personally I haven't seen a script that concentrates with the idea of brother protecting sister from boys. Have you? To me this is marketable, and is new? The script’s title is also marketable. Imagine the posters around the city with Drew going behind some girls while his head looks at Mandy on the other side of the poster followed by dozens of boys and the title on top I WANT TO F___ YOUR SISTER? Every teenager will go watch it and even older persons. You see my point?
Another good example is 40 Years Old Virgin. When you read the title your like “Oh God”. This makes you watch the film which is a good comedy and a very successful one. These comedies have new takes on the genre with something fresh. So now you understand why American Pie movies are going down down down down. How many are there 6 or 7?
CUT TO:
The writing was great, it made you read it fast. I like the way the writer puts the characters thought in the descriptions in italics. The dialogue was funny and smart. I love this line:
LANDON You burned down the start of Charity Season! With a fire so big it’s visible on Google Maps...
Anyway if we talk about characters, i think both Drew and Mandy are the protagonists, even thought Drew has the more of the votes. There is nothing special about him, and you know since the first pages that he will change, at least I did. So to talk about Drew's story ark I would say he changes during the script more than the other characters. Even thought he protected Mandy since they were kids as Drew says himself, here he's facing something he might never thought. So it’s obvious that he doesn’t want Mandy to be like him.
In the beginning I thought that Mandy was some kind of those "nerd film girls" but she was intelligent and sexy . Even Mandy changes through the script, she comes in a big city and in her first minutes she gets robbed. I think Mandy looks at Drew as a inspiration and somehow tries to be like him in a good way till conflict arises. I should point out that even the character of Aarjev has some changes. The way i see it Mandy influenced on him so during the end we learn he is going to take College lessons.
So, as I said to me the strongest thing this script has is its simplicity. The writing was good, which leads me into thinking that if written in a different way it could have failed.
I think it might be even the next "Juno", or am I exaggerating?
A little background about the script for those who are curious.
Writer Melissa Stack has an MFA in Screenwriting from USC, a law degree from USC and a BA from Georgetown University. Her pedigree is not that unusual for a lot of writers in Hollywood. Some of the best educated people on the planet write "dumb" tv and movies.
Sister was bought for $300,000 against $600,000 by MTV Films and is set up with Paramount as the distributor. Escape Artists is the production entity putting the film together. If it goes, it's going to be directed by the directors who did Blades of Glory. My guess is a budget that would top out at $25 million.
Sorry i see you moved with the discussion but i can't be here as much to follow. So here it is my review. Yes Breanne i read it .
Nik, I had to keep things moving along for the people who were already participating. But there’s no point we passed we can’t go back to so that everyone can participate. So please feel free to go back to an earlier issue.
Personally I haven't seen a script that concentrates with the idea of brother protecting sister from boys. Have you? To me this is marketable, and is new?
I’ve seen this basic idea used many times. But no, I can’t recall a specific movie that concentrated solely on this premise.
But I also think the title versus execution might be a bit of a liability. Because this focuses almost solely on the brother/sister relationship. As a sort of familial film in the spirit of Meet The Parents, I think this can do well. It seems to me to even perhaps be a bit inspired by Meet The Parents. Rather than the father protecting his daughter, here we have the brother protecting his sister.
But Parents had a title that suggested what it was really about. If people go to Sister expecting what the title suggests, they may be disappointed. This story suggests early on that it will live up to the title. And it certainly has a lot of talk from people who talk as though they live up to the title. But I didn’t personally think it lived up to the title. Very few people actually tried to accomplish what the title suggests. The author’s view of men seems to be that they stay in a perpetual state of horniness. Fine but they seldom act on it in this script.
Even Mandy changes through the script, she comes in a big city and in her first minutes she gets robbed. I think Mandy looks at Drew as a inspiration and somehow tries to be like him in a good way till conflict arises.
I didn’t see Mandy as a character who had any flaws. She was nearly perfect in every way. She was beautiful, intelligent, desirable. She had ambition and prospects. She was loving and loyal. She had few if any reservations about dating Aarjev, a guy she had nothing in common with. Even her blind devotion to her brother didn’t really hurt her. What bad happened to her was brought upon her.
I often wondered whether the author really wanted her to be a three dimensional character or a hot chick to fill the scenery. When she was first on Wall Street, it looked as though perhaps she was just going to be a trophy swarmed by horny guys while Drew batted off their advances.
So maybe the lesson here is that as long as the story has structure (a clear protagonist with a clear goal, etc.) and the writing is interesting, anything else is overlookable.
A little background about the script for those who are curious.
Writer Melissa Stack has an MFA in Screenwriting from USC, a law degree from USC and a BA from Georgetown University. Her pedigree is not that unusual for a lot of writers in Hollywood. Some of the best educated people on the planet write "dumb" tv and movies.
Sister was bought for $300,000 against $600,000 by MTV Films and is set up with Paramount as the distributor. Escape Artists is the production entity putting the film together. If it goes, it's going to be directed by the directors who did Blades of Glory. My guess is a budget that would top out at $25 million.
Thank you Verdugo. I had looked up some of the information you give. Some of it’s new to me. I appreciate it.
I do think the title needs to be changed, but at the same time, I think the title does represent the premise of the movie.
It's about guys wanting to land the center square, win at bingo, be grizzlies-- however you want to put it. It's about guys wanting to play the field and Drew exemplifies this trait that is common in men and it's all wrapped up inside of his character.
The idea that: Your girlfriend is also someone's sister is both the theme and it relates to Drew's coming into the light and recognizing this-- hence his grand (granted over the top) speech at the end. But this is the movies and we love to see what we know wouldn't happen in real life.
The title is obviously too course for the type of movie it is. Did I say that right? I don't know, but I think you know what I mean. It's has a tame quality about it-- meant to make fun of the stereotypes I think.
I don’t think the title necessarily needs to be changed. I just don’t think it reflects the actual content of the film. Correct me if I’m wrong anyone, but I don’t recall a single scene where anyone actually tried to ____ his sister.
But this line of questioning is getting really close to “rewriting the script” and I don’t think we should try to do that. As has been mentioned in the past; This script sold -- as it is.
So maybe the question needs to be asked: How important is the title? Obviously it’s important. But how important? Can it make or break a script’s chances?
I don’t think the title necessarily needs to be changed. I just don’t think it reflects the actual content of the film. Correct me if I’m wrong anyone, but I don’t recall a single scene where anyone actually tried to ____ his sister.
But this line of questioning is getting really close to “rewriting the script” and I don’t think we should try to do that. As has been mentioned in the past; This script sold -- as it is.
So maybe the question needs to be asked: How important is the title? Obviously it’s important. But how important? Can it make or break a script’s chances?
Breanne
I disagree here on a couple of points. Someone mentioned that the title is probably going to change; so I'm commenting here and I truly am curious.
I for one don't want to rewrite this script and I'm not at all talking about rewriting it. I'm following up with dialogue regarding the notion that the title will be adjusted.
Regarding the title and the premise of the movie:
As I mentioned in the above post, (And it's only my opinion) but I think it's clear: The "I want" part. Just because you want it, it doesn't mean you get it. It's the DESIRE that is depicted in this title-- love it or not.
No particular sister is mentioned. The "I" could be anyone. As a matter of fact, in this way, I think Melissa has turned "sister" into (not a noun) but a pronoun representing all women.
The meaning is both veiled, but explicit at the same time.
How important is the title? Tremendously important. Absolutely and without a doubt and perhaps the title to get "the reads" (at first) is perfect! Is it the perfect title for the theatres? I don't think so. But not for the reason that it doesn't fit with the premise because I think it does.
I only think it doesn't fit for the theatres because it's too heavy for the fun pokes this film makes and it's mood. It's just too much to be up on a flag pole waving in the breeze somewhere-- but I could see an "X" somewhere in the title. Why? because of it's perfect relationship to what I'm calling the key incident, to the game and because "X" means kiss and maybe a "real kiss" is what all ladies really need.
I for one don't want to rewrite this script and I'm not at all talking about rewriting it. I'm following up with dialogue regarding the notion that the title will be adjusted.
Hey Sandra, I didn’t mean to insinuate you wanted to rewrite the script. I’m sorry for my poor choice of words. I was worried one thing would lead to another. I was afraid if we talked about giving it a new title, it might lead to talking about how to change the script. I think most agree the title is a grabber.
As I mentioned in the above post, (And it's only my opinion) but I think it's clear: The "I want" part. Just because you want it, it doesn't mean you get it. It's the DESIRE that is depicted in this title-- love it or not.
No particular sister is mentioned. The "I" could be anyone. As a matter of fact, in this way, I think Melissa has turned "sister" into (not a noun) but a pronoun representing all women.
The meaning is both veiled, but explicit at the same time.
I think most people will expect from the title that they’ll see people trying to get their hands on his sister literally, not just desiring to. I could be wrong though.
Hey Sandra, I didn’t mean to insinuate you wanted to rewrite the script. I’m sorry for my poor choice of words. I was worried one thing would lead to another. I was afraid if we talked about giving it a new title, it might lead to talking about how to change the script. I think most agree the title is a grabber.
I think most people will expect from the title that they’ll see people trying to get their hands on his sister literally, not just desiring to. I could be wrong though.
Breanne
I think you're right on both counts here. Although, I might not intend to... one thing does easily lead to another. (To0 bad our scripts don't always write that easily LOL).
And I also agree with you that many people would take this title at face value.
I thought the title promises a totally different script. I felt that although the script was good and I liked it, it let me down somewhat. I'm an "old" woman so I hate to say this, but I was hoping for a "raunchier" script. As far as that goes, this script was fairly lame, IMHO of course...
I thought the title promises a totally different script. I felt that although the script was good and I liked it, it let me down somewhat. I'm an "old" woman so I hate to say this, but I was hoping for a "raunchier" script. As far as that goes, this script was fairly lame, IMHO of course...
I know where to go to get raunchier. I would just go back to one of my "in the works" drafts of Cielo which Zack initiated and it took a spin in another direction before it went into limbo due to a lack of seriousness on the part of some of the writers apparently involved.
Seriously though, (actually I was serious-- shy maybe, but serious) were you really expecting Marilyn Chambers? Deep Throat?
I honestly don't know what I was expecting, but I have to agree, I wasn't expecting it to be so tame. So what do you think is wrong here?
Or wait, I'm not supposed to ask what's wrong. What's right here?
I think that the issue of "what a script promises" through its title and its packaging is a good one to pursue here. And it also brings on board Brea's questions earlier about marketing and salability.
It's why we sweat blood over loglines and titles.
I think that your point on this title NOT delivering the goods on what it appears to promise is a good one. It doesn't matter what critics want to "read" into it. It doesn't matter about veiled themes. What matters is delivering on a promise.
The audience will feel betrayed if the writer seems to promise one thing and then delivers another.
I am wondering how often "working titles" do actually change.
I think the title is a hook and a good one, but as you already pointed out it has nothing to do with the script.
I made a description of what it could be the poster of this movie, and i think it will grab most of the teenagers.
When i first heard about the script, i thought "Damn another American Pie SH!T". I was somehow surprised to see it was really different.
During the script nobody wanted to ____ her. But they had their eyes closed on her. I think these two are different meanings. While i was reading the script, i was waiting for a scene on which a guy takes Mandy to a motel or his apartment, and Drew comes to rescue her.
Anyway, this is just fine with me. I like it alot. And thanks to Verdugo for the infos.
The title of this script made me want to read it. But ultimately it failed to deliver the story I expected. It was much tamer than the title implies.
Though there was a romantic story line via Mandy, I would not classify this as a romantic comedy. It reminded me of a comedy along the lines of the 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN (which I guess was a romantic comedy) but this one didn’t have the romance. And though it did have its moments, it wasn’t a laugh a minute – more like a laugh every half hour. And even though I didn’t really laugh very much at this script, it clearly fits in the comedy mold.
Actually, I didn’t like this script much. I didn’t like the character of Drew or his friends or quite a bit of their dialogue. Someone commented earlier that the script went fast for them. I found it a very slow read. I was overjoyed when I finally finished.
I don’t often like movies about traders. There have been some exceptions. For comedy – Trading Places was one. I didn’t like Weekend at Bernie’s and the tone of this script really reminded me of Weekend at Bernie’s. This script could easily be set in the 80’s without any problem.
To say something nice about it I did think Mandy was ok and didn’t mind Aarjev either. I thought Laurel was a bit confused.
The protag of this script was Drew, he had the most pronounced arc. And I would say the antag was Mandy, as she had the second largest arc and provided Drew with obstacles.
The structure struck me as a simple three act. First act ending around the VETO. Last act beginning with The Plan.
I am amazed a script like this was purchased. If I were a reader and it ran across my desk – unless it met specific criteria my boss was seeking – I would pass on it.
I think the title, “I Want to F—Your Sister” is great.
Want To F___ Your Sister:
“A young man goes to great lengths to protect his younger sister from guys just like him"
That sounds great too me. Sandra E. said it best about the theme.
Stories should always be about something before the hook. Or in other words, ‘what’s the story before the story’, example John McClain and his martial problems before the building is token and people are held hostage, one of which is John’s wife.
Drew and his relationship problem and incoming job problems (before his sister comes his boss is already considering replacing him with Davis), before his sister becomes the center square. That second part is when the hook kicks in, and that is the title of the story, which just the thing that the hero has to go through in order to correct something, hopefully it links back to whatever the opening story entails. Breanna you’re asking about scene where someone literally tries to bang his sister, but can you deny that that’s his goal, she’s the center square, it’s already been established what that means. I guys confuse me, or I’m confusing myself, which I admit happens. Pia, you had nothing to say about title, “Fade to White” and its premise, if I recall correctly you had good things to say. And you know I’m right Pia because the Florida Gators lost to a bunch of Volunteers.
Many people have said that this is a story about, brother protecting sister, but I think it’s more universal in ‘treat others as you want to be treated’, and specifically in ‘treat woman how they ought to be treated.’ It’s still in the same ballpark but if I was directing this or an actor in it this is where I would draw my emotionally connection from.
Because it’s every guy has either a sister or daughter and if non of those, a mother. All the women in the story are or will be one of those. Drew ogles Laurel just as everyone does his sister. If I were director or part of the production I would suggest that Drew meets in one scene.
“I Want to F- Your Daughter, Mother, Sister”; Sister is funniest and provides the best arena; wall street, frat house, men like animals. Though I could make the argument for… “I Want to be F—By My Brother’s Friends”… cause ladies aren’t all nice/innocent in this equation. I don’t really thinks it’s a matter if it’s a good title, it’s good, it conjures something up in your head, but I disagree with the notion that this story is wrong for the title, or has nothing to do with.
Some other titles I like… How I Met Your Mother, The 40 Year Old Virgin (a main character; hook), Forgetting Sarah Marshall (a main character; hook), someone mentioned American Pie that is a good title. Some titles only work after you learn the premise. 40 Year Old Virgin, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, I want to F- Your Sister, you mind just instantly gets it, gets the joke.
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
There's also a poll out of the chosen titles you like best, you may have to log into imdb for that... Shaun of the Dead and There Will Be Blood (my pick) were top two.
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
I don’t often like movies about traders. There have been some exceptions. For comedy – Trading Places was one. I didn’t like Weekend at Bernie’s and the tone of this script really reminded me of Weekend at Bernie’s. This script could easily be set in the 80’s without any problem.
You are right and as I mentioned earlier, with what's currently happening with the financial markets, I think this film if released now would leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Who want to see these people chasing BIG money on Wall Street when real people are loosing their jobs, their homes, savings and retirement money? I personally don't think many would.
…though it did have its moments, it wasn’t a laugh a minute – more like a laugh every half hour. And even though I didn’t really laugh very much at this script, it clearly fits in the comedy mold.
I found it a very slow read. I was overjoyed when I finally finished.
I wouldn’t say I was overjoyed when I was finished but I will say the rest is a fair summation of my feelings. I took breaks from reading because I got tired of it. It got a little taxing for me.
However;
I could still see it on the screen the whole time I read and I think watching it at the theater would be a much more enjoyable experience than reading it. But I could see it on the screen. I just don’t know if the reason I could see it on screen was because it read so much like a movie or if it was because I felt I’d seen it all before.
In any event, I think perhaps the fact that it read so much like something you would see on screen had a lot to do with its sale.
About the title:
It’s got a grabber title. The butts will be in the seats before people determine whether or not it lives up to its title. And who knows? Even for those people who don’t think it lives up to its title; they might enjoy it despite that. I wasn’t mad that I didn’t feel it lived up to its title.
I do really think this movie is going to have to sex it up before it gets shot. If shot exactly by the script, people will go to the theater expecting to see guys hit on someone’s sister and they’re going to see another guy’s photoshopped balls more than that.
You are right and as I mentioned earlier, with what's currently happening with the financial markets, I think this film if released now would leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Who want to see these people chasing BIG money on Wall Street when real people are loosing their jobs, their homes, savings and retirement money? I personally don't think many would.
Pia’s brought this up a couple of times and I haven’t had a chance to comment. Yes, I think people in America, at least right now, won’t enjoy watching a bunch of rich horny Wall Street traders throwing away money on parties and sex.
So what do the people who’ve participated think about this Script Club?
There’s been a lot less participation this time.
Is it too early? Do you think others will join in given a little more time?
Or was it too restrictive? Too focused on the positive? Too serious?
I guess I don’t make a very good hostess. I bet if everything degenerated into goofing off, fighting, or bashing the script, we’d get plenty of people in here quickly.
I’m disappointed there hasn’t been more participation. But I’m not surprised. I feel like all the worrying about two clubs at once was for nothing. I think the Script Club should just go back to doing Unproduced scripts from now on.
So I’m pretty much done hostessing. I don’t think it’s necessary. I think people like messed up threads. So this one can just get messed up I guess.
Some general thoughts about what I have read from other posters:
1. It seems like a lot of you are focussing on the writing and dissecting what about the writing made the film sell. (you're screenwriters so that's obvious I suppose).
There are a large number of factors that go into deciding which scripts get bought, and the quality of writing is not IMHO, the primary concern.
Genre is the number one reason why scripts get bought. Comedies in any given year make up between 80-95% of gross Box Office takings. Hence, they are the easiest type of script to sell.
Thrillers are the next staple of Hollywood.
If your goal is to sell a script, then it makes sense to concentrate on those two genres. You'll find it easier to get an agent and you'll find it easier to sell a script.
2. The large Studios spend a fortune on buying scripts. Often they buy them just to be on the safe side, no-one wants to be the guy who missed out on the surprise Box Office smash. The vast majority of films that are purchased will never get made.
3. Hollywood is an industry. It is run by Accountants and Lawyers who are accountable on business and not quality lines. An exec who Produces a string of critically acclaimed hits that tank will be fired, a guy that makes money but Produces films that are universally slammed by critics will be promoted.
4. The quality of a script is not as important as who you know. That is the truth. It's the truth in all businesses. 95% of all film deals in the UK are signed in the Groucho Club between friends. Almost every major deal in Hollywood is made in either Los Angeles or New York. Usually between friends.
5. As regards writing style. I honestly don't know why so many of you prevaricate over it so much. You should worry about the premise, the story and the characters. Once that is down, it is extraordinarily easy to make something read a little bit better. You could do it in a day.
6. One of the problems I notice in a lot of pre-professional scripts is a lack of ambition. The scripts aren't high concept enough for Hollywood.
IMO what tends to happen is that writers, conscious of the fact that they haven't been produced, tend to water down their films so that they can be produced on smaller budgets. They shy away from huge cut scenes because they fear it takes it out of the range of Independent filmmakers.
The problem is you end up with a script that isn't high powered enough for Hollywood, but isn't deep enough for Independents.
It's all about making a consistent plan about where you want to head.
If you are burning to write the new Die Hard, fully commit to it, invest it with high energy scenes that are bigger and better than anything seen on screen so far, move to L.A, visit all the festivals with film markets (That's where all the buyers are) and push it with everything that you have.
On the other hand, if you love to write intense personal struggles look at finding the people who develop those kinds of film and approach them. The worst they can say is no.
Honestly, the sad thing is that all of the people on here who are so concerned with writing style, have absolutely no need to be. The reason you are so concerned is because you are quality writers who take an interest in the craft, but it's such a trifling part of it.
Almost everything that you read in script writing books is either so obvious that story tellers do it naturally or completely untrue, in the sense that most of the best loved films prove the rules wrong.
To discuss whether there is too much dialogue is absurd. All that matters is whether it is good dialogue and is it moving the story forward? You wouldn't believe how many writers I've seen try to imitate Tarantino's dialogue. Somehow they all, miraculously, manage to miss the fact that Tarantino's dialogue was critical to the film and revealed character and conflict.
7. Hollywood writers generally write in a very dumbed down manner. The structures are formulaic, the stories and dialogue have been literally picked up from other scripts and merely placed in a different order. However these writers are writing to the fullest extent of their ability. They write like that because those are the types of films that they like and a large number of people also like them.
You can't and shouldn't try and imitate the writing style (a lot of people would disagree with me I know) because it's not honest and it won't work. You have to stick to the way you write yourselfand then find the avenues to take it in.
I also wish people would stop looking to other scripts for inspiration. I think a lot of writers would benefit from completely distancing themselves from other people's scripts. They should get inspiration from elsewhere. If you want to write interesting characters, go and meet interesting people. Read stories of refugees from Rwanda, Darfur, visit these places so you see what humanity is really capable of with your own eyes.
We live in the most unsettling time in history and are surrounded by genocide, human trafficking etc yet so few stories have any soul whatsoever.
You are totally wrong I'm happy to say. I think some might still be reading and just haven't had the time to chime in. It hasn't been that long either since this was started.
I'm willing to discuss whatever you want and as far as the last SC thread went, it only "took off" when people started disagreeing.
My own thoughts on this script is that:
Well written. Entertaining read. Standard story structure. Disappointing ending. Loved the title, but it did not relate to the story. The story is ok and would do fine, but needs a better fitting title so audiences won't feel tricked... like with a commercial... I think what made this one a good read was that it kept the tone throughout. Dialogue, action paragraphs and descriptions all fit together. All that said, I think the timing is terrible. If I was an investor, I would figure my money lost if the film was released now.
You want to talk about salability, what made it sell, or anything else...
Oh, just thought of one thing Verdugo said about the author's experience/education... it made me feel I have absolutely no chance. Not that I really thought I did anyway, but now I feel totally hopeless. The only way I'll see anything of mine on screen will be my own production or an indie freebie...
Lastly, you've done a great job! I suspect some others will jump in soon to participate.
As regards writing style. I honestly don't know why so many of you prevaricate over it so much. You should worry about the premise, the story and the characters. Once that is down, it is extraordinarily easy to make something read a little bit better. You could do it in a day.
Almost everything that you read in script writing books is either so obvious that story tellers do it naturally or completely untrue, in the sense that most of the best loved films prove the rules wrong.
Honestly, the sad thing is that all of the people on here who are so concerned with writing style, have absolutely no need to be. The reason you are so concerned is because you are quality writers who take an interest in the craft, but it's such a trifling part of it.
Why are you bringing up “the rules?” Nobody here said anything about that.
If that rules talk is some unfinished business you’re trying to drag in here from that "breaking the rules" thread, you can take it right on back out the door.
We’re studying a pro script to see what we can learn from it. If you know so much there’s nothing you can learn from it, then you have no purpose in being here. Don’t come here to start trouble.
I think some might still be reading and just haven't had the time to chime in. It hasn't been that long either since this was started.
Thanks Pia, we’ll wait and see. I just expected more to participate in a sincere positive study of a pro script since we’ve never really done any such thing here in the past.
Did Sandra say something about entering a scene late and exiting early? Story of my life. So leave the porch light on for us late-comers.
I'm so far behind the topic of discussion, I'm not sure what I know or who I remember...
Yes, I would buy this script. For these reasons and in this order: 1a Marketability 1b The Poster --- logline/premise 2. The Writing 3. The Story
I think it is a spectacularly marketable idea. "Wall Street Wonderboy" doing 180s to protect his kid sister. Mandy is virgin meat; a young woman coming of age, naïve and recently liberated. Hey guys, no more chastity belt [parents]. She’s smart but she’s kind of clueless; can’t tell the traders from the players, who are often times one in the same. And big brother, who is the king of players himself, is supposed to keep the maggots off the meat? It’s easy to see the comedic possibilities.
I hate the title, but if Drew could read minds… those are the words that are echoing between his ears. Can you see his dilemma, his panic? Now cut to:
It doesn’t take much to pull a one-sheet from under the covers. In fact, Nik gave us his version of the poster. If an Exec can see (and likes) the poster by the end of a pitch session, there’s a good chance he’ll read the script and a chance that he will option or purchase the story.
This story is aimed at the MTV crowd. A nice vehicle for the Flavors of the Month. I realize the state of the stock market, but I don't know if the intended audience will care.
I did not find Melissa Stack's script all that funny. But she did a masterful job of stroking the reader. Her cuts in and out of scenes were handled well, but I did find the parentheticals to be a bit much. Act 1 sang to me, it was nice. Acts 2 and 3 were just okay. Dialogue was pretty good and Stack has a knack of throwing in some zingers here and there which had me busting an unexpected laugh.
Sorry if I'm rushing through this. I'll break it down further if necessary. "Your Sister" was on the black list in '07 and here are some tidbits I picked up online:
Quoted from ]THE BLACK LIST was compiled from the suggestions of over 150 film executives and high-level assistants, each of whom contributed the names of up to ten of their favorite scripts that were written in, or are somehow uniquely associated with, 2007 and will not be released in theaters during this calendar year. Like last year, scripts had to receive at least two mentions to be included on THE BLACK LIST. All reasonable effort has been made to confirm the information contained herein. THE BLACK LIST apologizes for all misspellings, misattributions, incorrect representation identification, and questionable “2007” affiliations. ____
Started two years ago by a young executive at Leonardo DiCaprio’s production company Appian Way, who polled 90+ peers to send him their 10 favorite new unproduced screenplays to read over the holidays. The underground list was e-mailed around and quickly became a Hollywood phenomenon. To give you an idea, the top three entries of the 2005 list where Things We Lost in the Fire, Juno, and Lars and the Real Girl. However it should be noted that a warning appears at the beginning of the list: It has been said, but it’s worth repeating, THE BLACK LIST is not a “best of” list. It is, at best, a “most liked” list.
The Hottest Unproduced Screenplays of 2007
Posted on Sunday, December 9th, 2007 at 12:09 am by: Peter Sciretta Number 6. I Want To F— Your Sister - Lawyer-turned-screenwriter Melissa Stack’s high-concept comedic spec screenplay about “a young man goes to great lengths to protect his younger sister from guys just like him.” MTV Films pre-emptively bought the screenplay for $300,000 against $600,000. Stack quit her job as a Lawyer after the sale. [25 Votes
Penned by Melissa Stack, I Want to ___ Your Sister tells of an over-protective older brother who goes to great lengths to protect his little sister from guys like him ... which I read as slime balls looking for a good time in the sack. I'm, like, a totally nice guy though -- so I can't relate to those men out to ___ every girl they see. To make this story better, Stark was a lawyer who immediately quit her job once MTV bought the film for $300,000 against $600,000. You go girl! And I imagine the story is probably partially based on her own life. Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal and Steve Tisch are producing for Escape Artists, along with Aaron Kaplan and Sean Perrone. Says Black, "When Jason and I read this, we have not laughed this much ever." Of course, it could read great, but it all depends on the casting and whether or not the thing gets torn apart during re-writes. Here's where you get to put on your casting hats: Who would you choose to play the older brother and the younger sister?
"Yes, I would buy this script. For these reasons and in this order: 1a Marketability 1b The Poster --- logline/premise 2. The Writing 3. The Story"
Pretty much spot on IMO. Although I'd flip 2 and 3 around.
As you point out, the premise seems made for laughs (although the actual script failed to do the premise justice for me, but I rarely find comedies funny anyway.)
I'd personally bring in a couple of comedy writers to get some more laughs out of it. It's a little by the book for my liking and there is not enough pay off in a lot of the jokes.
I was backing you up. Not sure what you have taken offence to.
I’m sorry if I took your post wrong.
Your initial post made no mention of anything specifically regarding the script. Your post seemed to be based entirely on past posts and seemed to have nothing directly to do with this particular script. Which was bad enough. But then you started talking about rules. It looked to me as though you wanted to get into a debate like the one from the breaking the rules thread.
If that wasn't your intention, then I apologize. If you want to participate, you’re more than welcome.
So what do the people who’ve participated think about this Script Club?
I love it. I wish I had more time to devote to reading and contributing. I'm a slow reader because I have never liked reading -- have only read maybe 6 novels in my life. It's a struggle. But I appreciate the time and energy writers devote to their craft and their creations.
Or was it too restrictive? Too focused on the positive? Too serious?
The Script Club is very insightful. Studying a "pro script" is helpful because we can see how a good writer skates the edges of style and formatting; at the same time, delivering a good story and solid dialogue. I love the way the so-called pros work the Reader.
I guess I don’t make a very good hostess. I bet if everything degenerated into goofing off, fighting, or bashing the script, we’d get plenty of people in here quickly.
You're probably correct. Not the hostess part, but the goofing around. I try to tiptoe around the tomfoolery and expend my limited energy on critiques.
I’m disappointed there hasn’t been more participation. But I’m not surprised. I feel like all the worrying about two clubs at once was for nothing. I think the Script Club should just go back to doing Unproduced scripts from now on.
I can go either way, but I don't think you've failed. I feel uplifted by the comments on this thread. The exploration of any script, with round-table discussion is what is vital to making SS a rounded, useful script-exchange community. Being OLDer, I appreciate the "serious" analysis of screenplays. Not that old age has anything to do anything other than moving slower than s*** rolling up hill. Most every participant, I think, is doing a good job of stimulating thought, ideas and trading perspectives.
I was just responding to issues raised in the course of the discussion, particularly the question of why this script was picked up, and for decent money.
People, yourself included, were also discussing how they were going to change their writing style based on what they had read. I was merely pointing out that the writing style of most of the posters isn't necessarily the thing that is preventing them from selling their scripts to Hollywood.
The number one thing that will sell a script, is whether or not it is marketable.
Everyone is talking about the title of this film. It's probably going to make money regardless of whether or not it's any good.
Many script writers don't know how to market themselves or a script. Melissa Stack understands the game and the business. Shock tactics always work (even if they're only in the title).
Note down all the scripts on the black list and see which ones get made or bought for big money, and you'll see what Hollywood buys.
There just seems to be a discrepancy between what people write and what Hollywood buys for a lot of people. If people want to sell to Hollywood, then they need to understand the business side of things. They need to understand what the studios are specifically looking for and why.
Abe makes a great point about being able to see the poster of the film from the off. Don't underestimate how big a role the marketing guys play in the process. They struggle badly to work out how to market films that don't have a very specific genre. Bladerunner is perhaps the classic example of that.
All I'm trying to point out is that the lessons to be taken from this script are not solely to be found in the writing. There are wider issues.
In fact, the most pertinent thing about the script is that although it's well written, it's just not funny. Unless there are significant changes to the 2nd and 3rd Act it will make only a passable film at best, IMO.
Anyway, I'm going to stay out of all discussions on this site from now on. I just seem to antagonise people for some reason.
But I will point out that I believe that there are writers on this board who are capable of writing far better scripts than this.
So what do the people who’ve participated think about this Script Club?
There’s been a lot less participation this time.
Is it too early? Do you think others will join in given a little more time?
Or was it too restrictive? Too focused on the positive? Too serious?
I guess I don’t make a very good hostess. I bet if everything degenerated into goofing off, fighting, or bashing the script, we’d get plenty of people in here quickly.
I’m disappointed there hasn’t been more participation. But I’m not surprised. I feel like all the worrying about two clubs at once was for nothing. I think the Script Club should just go back to doing Unproduced scripts from now on.
So I’m pretty much done hostessing. I don’t think it’s necessary. I think people like messed up threads. So this one can just get messed up I guess.
Breanne
Breanne, don't be so hard on yourself. I have been reading this thread and it seems like you have done a fine job. In your original thread about this I did say I would have a go but nobody sent me a copy of the script, so I assumed I was probably still in the dog-house. For what it is worth I think you are on the right path, although Decadencefilms did have some good points to make above.
People, yourself included, were also discussing how they were going to change their writing style based on what they had read. I was merely pointing out that the writing style of most of the posters isn't necessarily the thing that is preventing them from selling their scripts to Hollywood.
I don’t know why you feel the need to point this out. Nobody here ever said that writing style was all you needed. It was just the subject of the time. I see ways to improve my own writing based on what I’ve learned. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making changes to improve yourself.
Quoted from Breanne
The objective: to study a script that sold in Hollywood; to examine what made it sell; and to use it as a model to help give us a better understanding of how to improve our own work toward the goal of selling a script.
This is the objective of this discussion group. We’re open to discuss every aspect, from the premise to the marketing. And no one ever said otherwise.
Many script writers don't know how to market themselves or a script. Melissa Stack understands the game and the business. Shock tactics always work (even if they're only in the title).
There just seems to be a discrepancy between what people write and what Hollywood buys for a lot of people. If people want to sell to Hollywood, then they need to understand the business side of things. They need to understand what the studios are specifically looking for and why.
Agreed. That’s part of what we’re here to discuss. We can make that the next subject if you’d like.
I'm going to stay out of all discussions on this site from now on. I just seem to antagonise people for some reason.
It’s okay. It’s just that you seem to think just because we focus on one subject at a time we must think that’s all there is to it. The purpose of this discussion is to focus on each aspect and examine it in greater depth than what most people usually get the chance to do with a group.
You’re more than welcome to participate. We can turn the discussion to marketability if you’d like and that should smooth things over a bit.
In your original thread about this I did say I would have a go but nobody sent me a copy of the script, so I assumed I was probably still in the dog-house.
Well, I’m certainly sorry to hear that. You’re not in any doghouse that I know of. And I think for his failure to send you a copy Mike Shelton should be tied up and gagged with a lumberjack sock.
I can email you a copy. [Edit -- I sent you a copy. As far as I know, it went through.]
Sandra, I prefer your description of Drew, but prefer the rest of the logline. "A Wall Street wonderboy goes to great lengths to protect his younger sister from guys just like him"
I think the Wall Street wonderboy adds more power to the story line. Wall Street is a testerone-driven playground. Money is power and power and sex is a potent mix. I didn't think the orignial logline was all that great, but it was still clear enough for anybody to understand. Clear enough to hook a reader. And why is this? Because MS's story premise is (as somebody mentioned) Simple. Brother protects sister from guys like him -- Easy to pitch. And hollywood execs love the quick, easy to understand one-sentence logline.
A Hollywood type might next ask: Is the sister, you know, a Virgin? Let's just say her toes have never pointed to heaven.
No need to explain what's going on in the story. All the energy is directed to the endless comedic possibilities. It only gets better for the writer.
This was my concern about Dreamscale's "Fade to White" and his/our inability to nail the logline. If it reads like the instructions to assembling a car engine or is watered down to mask the twists , it doesn't matter if Jeff thinks he's got the next great Hitchcockian murder mystery. There are too many unproduced scripts floating around for a hollywood type to blow out brains cells needlessly on loglines. Some preach writing the logline before the script. If you know your logline, "you know your idea and you know where the script is going." KISS.
Let people finish reading. Plus i think when is a fight going on, people like to take sides. I see the script clubs as a very helpful thread. Personally, i will try my best and participate in most of them.
About the script we're discussing here, i think the script is not like those "BIG" ones, but is a fresh new take on the comedy, portraying the relationship between brother and sister. As i have mentioned earlier in my previous posts, consider 40 Years Old Virgin.
Both of these scripts have a new take on the comedy, and to me it looks marketable. So, i guess we need to come up with new takes on our scripts.
About the script we're discussing here, i think the script is not like those "BIG" ones, but is a fresh new take on the comedy, portraying the relationship between brother and sister. As i have mentioned earlier in my previous posts, consider 40 Years Old Virgin.
The teen/20-something market is incredibly fertile and as I mentioned before, this script is an ideal vehicle for some rising stars. What a hook. It's a variation on the fish out of the water tale, only the fish is in his own element. Actually it's more like role reversal. This is a low-risk investment for an executive. If the film fails, and I don't think it will if properly cast and directed, he did his job. The old addage is true, it's better to lose $150 million with Tom Cruise than $5 million with Steve Guttenberg. That's why I would pony up the bucks for this script. Sure it has glitches and holes, but that can be fixed. Stack will do another draft or two and if she doesn't cut it, they will bring in another writer. Priority One is to secure the project.
I'm surprised somebody didn't jump on this script sooner. The irony is that I wouldn't spend $5 to see this film. HA.
Breanne I think you're doing a great job hosting. About the only thing that I would change about your hosting is that you are quite self-deprecating at times. Have some confidence!
Decadence people disagree - you know that - no reason not to contribute because of it, as a matter of fact if you have a differing opinion that is a good reason to contribute. I'm happy to see you join in the Script Club discussions (even if I might disagree with you).
Abe from LA good to see you here too.
Yep, definitely learned lots from reading this script. I very much learned what I would not write - I'd be more likely to write something like Countdown than this. I would never have read this script though if it wasn't for this thread. I think there's still more to discuss about this script but I'm confused as to what we are discussing atm.
If it's marketability, then I could see this film being marketable. Not to my age group - I wouldn't even rent this on a DVD. But to 20 somethings, maybe. I think though it will need a bit more development before it is made.
To me it seems to want to be a romantic comedy but it never quite makes it there. I bet who ever takes this on will focus a bit more on the relationship between Drew and Laurel. I wouldn't be surprised if Laurel ends up in the Denouement.
But I'm not supposed to suggest how to improve this. So someone asked earlier, I think it was Abe (who name isn't really Abe), how would we cast. I thought about this while I was reading and realized I was totally hopeless with 20-something actors. But what I think will happen is that they will probably pick up some of the 20-somethings from TV shows. This is a perfect vehicle for them. Maybe Hayden Panettiere as sis, Matthew Fox as bro though he might be a bit old. I'm sure there are other combinations but this is the first that came to mind for me.
Sorry for not participating here, but I haven't finished the script yet, and won't get a chance until at least tomorrow. People jumped all in so fast that by the time I started reading, there were already over 50 posts, and I was too far behind.
If things are still kicking in here tomorrow, I'll jump in.
I was just upset yesterday because I saw this thread, which I consider to have a very important goal, which has almost everything to do with why we’re here at this site, dragging while another thread, which has almost no importance, which has almost nothing to do with why we’re here at this site, getting pounded with posts.
It made me feel that perhaps there simply wasn’t enough interest in this thread. And of course I wanted to find out why.
Sorry if I haven’t given people enough time. I get excited and want to get things accomplished. I’ve got some experience with organizing clubs or helping organize community events. There’s so much to get done that if you don’t have a “get things done” attitude, you’ll get swallowed alive. Sometimes people would think I was a bit…well…bossy -- haha. I thought perhaps I was coming off as too controlling and running people off.
About the subject:
There are those who haven’t read yet, so I think it’s okay to move to the subject of marketability. That covers the beginning with premise, etc, to the end with selling. This will allow people just joining to sort of merge into conversation with people already engaged.
So do you think the author contrived the premise? That is to say; do you think she laid out the criteria for a salable script and conscientiously tried to meet it? Did she say to herself; “Hmm. I need a premise that involves young people, sex, partying,….?”
So do you think the author contrived the premise? That is to say; do you think she laid out the criteria for a salable script and conscientiously tried to meet it? Did she say to herself; “Hmm. I need a premise that involves young people, sex, partying,….?”
Meaning she thought of those three things first and then fabricated the story around that? I would say probably not. There isn't enough sex and partying in here for me to buy into that.
Meaning she thought of those three things first and then fabricated the story around that? I would say probably not. There isn't enough sex and partying in here for me to buy into that.
Well, those were just sort of examples.
But for me, the title definitely insinuates sex. The logline insinuates there will be a lot of sexual advances. When you start reading the script, Mandy is presented as this virginal sort and then we find out she’s ready to loosen up. Drew is presented as a party boy womanizer. Mandy is then sort of objectified with Drew’s friends and coworkers ogling her. Up to that point, everything seemed to me to be pulling the reader into a very sexually charged story.
As the brother/sister storyline emerged, I felt like the story came off more as though it was confused as to which direction to go. It’s like the author couldn’t follow through with the sexual themes and wanted to go for some substance instead. For me the middle was very muddled and the end was very sort of anticlimactic.
But it seemed to me that the initial intention was sex, partying, etc.
You are totally wrong I'm happy to say. I think some might still be reading and just haven't had the time to chime in. It hasn't been that long either since this was started.
I'm willing to discuss whatever you want and as far as the last SC thread went, it only "took off" when people started disagreeing.
My own thoughts on this script is that:
Well written. Entertaining read. Standard story structure. Disappointing ending. Loved the title, but it did not relate to the story. The story is ok and would do fine, but needs a better fitting title so audiences won't feel tricked... like with a commercial... I think what made this one a good read was that it kept the tone throughout. Dialogue, action paragraphs and descriptions all fit together. All that said, I think the timing is terrible. If I was an investor, I would figure my money lost if the film was released now.
You want to talk about salability, what made it sell, or anything else...
Oh, just thought of one thing Verdugo said about the author's experience/education... it made me feel I have absolutely no chance. Not that I really thought I did anyway, but now I feel totally hopeless. The only way I'll see anything of mine on screen will be my own production or an indie freebie...
Lastly, you've done a great job! I suspect some others will jump in soon to participate.
Echo-echo-echo!!!
I agree with everything you said here. And I understand the feeling of a disappointing ending. I think it was hinted to be more positive, but it's not explicit enough.
I know Verdugo didn't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but I felt the same way after reading about "pedigree". I think that the thing to keep in mind is that success can never be guaranteed, but how much work one puts into something guarantees one thing for sure: That a person has a strong character in the sense that he has the will to try and to care. There is no room for apathy to exist in one who cares and considers something worthwhile-- whatever that something is.
Breanne, you've done an excellent job as hostess; you are right about the magnet of "disagreeableness". One only needs to take a look at the Alan Holdman thread-- if it's still around-- to see how the ugly factor of argumentativeness and scorn cause people to latch onto it like it was some kind of precious thing. Well, it's the same idea that drives a lot of reality TV.
If no one else wants to discuss professional scripts on the board, that's fine. I'm willing to discuss them off the boards with anyone who wants to do it that way.
Definitely, give it time for other people to give it a read. It hasn't been up for too long and as is typical, people disappear for a little bit and then come back if they're heavily involved in work etc...
Thanks. Melissa also lives in California. I live in Oregon and have driven to California many times. Still, I think living in LA helps a lot. She lived there and went to school there. She probably had a great deal of guidance most of us weren’t privy to.
To all:
Okay so what do you think about this title and premise?
The title is Milf.
It’s a about a pubescent teenage boy who moves to a new town and starts a new school. Of course he tries to make new friends. But when these horny boys see his mother, it’s fighting time. She’s smoking hot. To make matters worse, his mom is also a new teacher at the school. It’s horny teens, partying, sex and rumors of sex -- all over school. But really it’s about the mother/son relationship.
What do you think? Have I found the right formula?
It's impossible to disagree with you here. F___ as a verb is going to insinuate sex every time. No way around it. However, as you get into the story, you realize that it's more in line with Drew's frame of thought. Although I can't remember anyone specifically stating the line, Drew believes that just about everybody wants to fuck his sister. Davis, Jameson, Aarjev. Even his friend. This kind of goes back to the discussion about the title before, and personally, I think it works.
Quoted from Breanne
The logline insinuates there will be a lot of sexual advances.
Right again, there aren't, but how many people does Drew think are making sexual advances on his sister?
Quoted from Breanne
When you start reading the script, Mandy is presented as this virginal sort and then we find out she’s ready to loosen up.
Going that way beefs up the conflict. If Mandy were sheltered by her own doing, what problem would that present to Drew?
Quoted from Breanne
Drew is presented as a party boy womanizer. Mandy is then sort of objectified with Drew’s friends and coworkers ogling her.
I think Drew being presented as a party boy womanizer makes his paranoia that much more believeable. "I'm a guy, I do it, and those guys must want to do it too!"
Quoted from Breanne
Up to that point, everything seemed to me to be pulling the reader into a very sexually charged story.
Possibly during the intern bingo confrontation between Drew and Davis, but I don't think it was driven home enough to go into sexually charged territory.
Quoted from Breanne
As the brother/sister storyline emerged, I felt like the story came off more as though it was confused as to which direction to go. It’s like the author couldn’t follow through with the sexual themes and wanted to go for some substance instead. For me the middle was very muddled and the end was very sort of anticlimactic.
I never really got that feeling myself. As I read along, I could see Drew's problem eventually cause him to unravel and become desperate, which caused friction between him and Mandy, so much so that he eventually has to "win her back". It's a classic "boy meets girl" "boy loses girl" "boy gets girl back" scenario, but in a wildly different context. Plus there's the little added bonus that Drew's actions caused Mandy and Aarjev to get together.
Okay so what do you think about this title and premise?
Why don't you just call it "I Want to F___ Your Mom"?
What I mean is, obviously the formula is correct. It's the exact same one used in this script. Unfortunately, with a little bit of research I could probably find something like it that's already out there.
It's impossible to disagree with you here. F___ as a verb is going to insinuate sex every time.
Mike, I noticed you put an F at the beginning of the blank all the time. It’s not on the script. Did you just add that on your own or was it part of the title at one time?
Mike, I noticed you put an F at the beginning of the blank all the time. It’s not on the script. Did you just add that on your own or was it part of the title at one time?
Probably because it's in the name of the pdf file, which I've had to look at a lot lately.
I think the Wall Street wonderboy adds more power to the story line. Wall Street is a testerone-driven playground. Money is power and power and sex is a potent mix.
Do you know what Abe? I believe that it was your advice from my "Loglines" thread regarding Butterflies and Bones (still working hard on it) that helped me differentiate and understand the definitive element that I saw was lacking in the original logine in what I'll call "The Sister Script."
Thank you so much to you and everyone here for your insight.
Probably because it's in the name of the pdf file, which I've had to look at a lot lately.
I was wondering because you’re not the only one who keeps adding an F to the title. But I’ve never seen it anywhere but here. It’s not on the script and it’s not in any of the publicity materials.
I don’t believe it was ever actually part of the title.
For me it weakened it to see Drew worrying over things when I as the viewer could see he had absolutely nothing to worry about.
You don't think the audience knowing something that a main character doesn't isn't a common occurrence? Three's Company got by on this formula for years, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Quoted from Breanne
I was wondering because you’re not the only one who keeps adding an F to the title. But I’ve never seen it anywhere but here. It’s not on the script and it’s not in any of the publicity materials.
I don’t believe it was ever actually part of the title.
I think the title does not fit the story like a glove because the title came first.
She thought of this hot title and immediately sat down to write.
But as the story and characters developed, the script wandered off from "raunchy-land" into "heartwarming message" land.
The story went where it had to go -- but damn -- that title was just too good to lose.
So she kept it -- even though it no longer did the story justice -- because she knew that title would be a big part of what helped to get this script looked at.
Quoted from Brea
The title is "Milf"
Probably not strong enough in and of itself. You need to raise the bar a bit.
How about, "I was a teenage MILF" That ought to do it. Who wants to help me write it?
You don't think the audience knowing something that a main character doesn't isn't a common occurrence?
Oh my, if that’s what you got out of what I said, maybe I should quit writing. No of course I don’t think it’s rare. But this whole movie is based on a character degenerating into ruin over something that isn’t even happening.
There are several instances where he just sits at home and passively frets over it. He could have hired a PI to follow her. He could have done any number of things. Instead he sat home worrying about something that wasn’t happening. The logline lead me to believe he might actually have something to worry about. I was disappointed he didn’t.
But I’m going to shut up if I come off as so stupid that you think I think an audience knowing something a main character doesn’t is rare.
You still need to back it up with a story, of course -- but is a great title good enough to start running with in and of itself?
I believe it can be. A killer title can be a great inspiration when it comes down to the story, and really gives you something to think about. There are a few occassions where I've conceived a story after coming up with a title, and I was always happy with the results.
I asked because I was curious if you had a universal problem with that, since it is such a common occurence.
If something like that usually takes you out a film/script, not just this one, I would imagine lots of stories would be weakened for you.
No, I don’t have a problem with the audience knowing something a main character doesn’t know. I don’t even see how it can be avoided for the audience to at times know something a character doesn’t know. That’s why it seems so absurd to me that you would think I would have a problem with it.
My problem is that I don’t see how anyone can possibly get from the logline anything more profound than that there will be actual literal physical advances on the main character’s sister. The script doesn’t deliver that. And I don’t see how anyone can read anything more into than that the story didn’t live up to the title. I don’t see how anyone can see anything more profound than that with regard to the author’s intention. The author didn’t deliver on what the title promises.
To me, the title, the premise, and the script initially, all pointed to a very shallow story. Yes it gained a little more substance as it went along and lost some of its shallow tone. But it seems to me that trying to connect the title and premise to the story we’re given with the notion that the main character experiences the story in his head is infusing profound meaning into a shallow story.
I don’t believe the author intended to write a story where the main character tries to protect his sister from advances he only imagines. I don’t see anything that profound here. I see an author who intended for the main character to try to stop literal advances on his sister and didn’t deliver on that.
So, do you think just having a totally kick-ass title is a good enough starting point?
You still need to back it up with a story, of course -- but is a great title good enough to start running with in and of itself?
I think maybe it is.
I think you’re right Bert. A title that grabs the exec and makes him check out the premise and a premise that promises to deliver on the title. I don’t think the script has to deliver on the premise really. I think it just has to be “good enough.”
You didn't need to clarify it, Breanne. With the exception of the audience/character thing, I got it.
I just don't agree with it.
Huh? I didn’t need to clarify it? You got it except for the audience/character thing? That’s what I’m trying to clarify.
Quoted from Breanne
For me it weakened it to see Drew worrying over things when I as the viewer could see he had absolutely nothing to worry about.
By this statement, I don’t mean that it bugged me that the viewer knew something Drew didn’t know. I meant that it bugged me that Drew didn’t have anything to worry about. He’s sitting there fretting over things that aren’t happening anywhere except his own head. It might have been nice if someone actually tried to make a sexual advancement on his sister.
Personally I would have been more satisfied if maybe Mandy had a sexual advancement toward her and Drew really had to protect her. Or maybe a scene where Mandy handled herself in a situation when Drew wasn’t around. So they could both learn the value in each other.
It’s not that I can’t suspend disbelief by knowing something a main character doesn’t know. That has nothing to do with my point. Bad wording maybe.
Yes there are stories where characters worry about things when there isn’t anything to really worry about. I just don’t think it works for this particular movie that Drew never really has anything to worry about with regard to Mandy.
No, I don’t have a problem with the audience knowing something a main character doesn’t know. I don’t even see how it can be avoided for the audience to at times know something a character doesn’t know. That’s why it seems so absurd to me that you would think I would have a problem with it.
...was about the audience character aspect. You explained it and it was taken care of.
While this...
Quoted from Breanne
My problem is that I don’t see how anyone can possibly get from the logline anything more profound than that there will be actual literal physical advances on the main character’s sister. The script doesn’t deliver that. And I don’t see how anyone can read anything more into than that the story didn’t live up to the title. I don’t see how anyone can see anything more profound than that with regard to the author’s intention. The author didn’t deliver on what the title promises.
To me, the title, the premise, and the script initially, all pointed to a very shallow story. Yes it gained a little more substance as it went along and lost some of its shallow tone. But it seems to me that trying to connect the title and premise to the story we’re given with the notion that the main character experiences the story in his head is infusing profound meaning into a shallow story.
I don’t believe the author intended to write a story where the main character tries to protect his sister from advances he only imagines. I don’t see anything that profound here. I see an author who intended for the main character to try to stop literal advances on his sister and didn’t deliver on that.
Is more in line with your idea that the title and premise lived up to its expectation, I think, which we were previously discussing prior to the audience character mix up.
When you follow that up with...
Quoted from Breanne
I don’t know any clearer way to put it.
Surely you can see why I would think you were trying to clarify the latter.
Anyway, we're beating a dead horse. Moving on...
Now, if you were to write a scene where Mandy really did have a sexaul advancement toward her and Drew had to protect her, how would you handle it? How would you make it funny?
Now, if you were to write a scene where Mandy really did have a sexaul advancement toward her and Drew had to protect her, how would you handle it? How would you make it funny?
The problem with this question is that it’s asking me how I would revise the script. I would have to break my own rule to answer.
I have to stress that I believe the script is evidently fine as it is, at least as far as getting it sold. It will probably be changed before it’s shot but as far as being salable, it’s obviously salable as it is.
What I’m trying to get at is why it’s salable as it is. I’m wondering if it even matters whether a script delivers what it promises. Is what it promises more important than what it delivers?
Is there something to be gained from looking at how I might change it? Because it seems to me I should be looking at how not to change it. In other words; why bother changing it? When I discuss what I’m disappointed in, I’m really trying to get at what’s important and what’s not.
I’m not really trying to critique the script artistically. I’m trying to figure out what specifically made it salable. I think we all agree the title and the premise are grabbers. But what job is the script specifically serving? Is it just a story structure and some character names with background? A skeleton with enough meat on it to sort of give ownership to the title and premise?
I've got to finish this thing so I can jump in here. I like the back and forth discussions going on, and want to comment, even though I have not finished this script.
Bre, I personally think you're missing the boat here when you say you're trying to figure out why a certain script sold. Same thing with saying that you don't feel you/we should critique a sold script...as if because it's a sold script from a pro writer, it's great.
Seriously, look at all the movies that get produced each and every year...big budget, small budget, no budget DTV's. How many of them are actually "good" movies? How many have plots and storylines that are so great, or even different? How many do you walk away from thinking to your self, wow, that was great! What an amazing screenplay that came from!
I would imagine the answer is very few, at least in terms of percentages. Just because a script sells, or a pro writer makes big bucks for his/her work, doesn't mean that the script is necessarily great, or the writer is better than anyone else.
I think you can definitely look at pro scripts and try to see how they're different, or eye catching, but I don't think you should try to emulate the style, or subject matter. Write what you know and what you enjoy writing about. Come up with a great idea, work out your plots and characters, write great action, and see where it can lead you.
At one time, every pro writer was a non pro writer trying to break in. It's obviously not an easy task and Hollywood doesn't make it any easier, but if you truly believe and continue to improve your craft, I honestly believe that anyone can get that big break...with a little luck.
The problem with this question is that it’s asking me how I would revise the script. I would have to break my own rule to answer.
I just asked because you said you would have liked to have seen something like that and my curiosity got me.
How bout this, which is in the script.
The scene where Drew "catches" Aarjev with Mandy. Granted it's a total misunderstanding, but doesn't Drew believe that he's saving her?
To me, it's things like this that make the script deliver on its title and premise.
"A young man goes to great lengths to protect his younger sister from guys just like him."
In a different context, if a guy has a girlfriend and the girlfriend is meeting an old guy friend for dinner, things could get a little heated. The guy really has nothing to worry about, since his girlfirend is loving and loyal, so why the bother?
"You don't trust me?" she says...
His response?
"I trust you just fine, it's him I'm worried about."
The script itself is just a lengthier version of that scenario. Drew really doesn't have anything to worry about when it comes to Mandy, but the things that he sees or hears, coupled with the few instances where Mandy "flaunts her stuff" could really cause a guy to go overboard over a potentially nothing situation.
Quoted from Breanne
I’m not really trying to critique the script artistically. I’m trying to figure out what specifically made it salable. I think we all agree the title and the premise are grabbers. But what job is the script specifically serving? Is it just a story structure and some character names with background? A skeleton with enough meat on it to sort of give ownership to the title and premise?
What made the script salable is that it tells a good story, which also the job the script is serving.
Factor in that the title has marketability and that will serve as a good date movie, and you've got a winner.
Bre, I personally think you're missing the boat here when you say you're trying to figure out why a certain script sold. Same thing with saying that you don't feel you/we should critique a sold script...as if because it's a sold script from a pro writer, it's great.
Dreamscale, I never said a script is great just because it sold. I don’t think anyone here thinks a script is great just because it sold. Certainly not me.
Examining its artistic merits only leads to a bunch of pointless arguments. This script sold exactly as it is. I think examining why that might be is as valuable, perhaps more so, as complaining about Hollywood making bad movies. If people didn’t pay to see those bad movies, Hollywood would stop making them.
Quoted from Dreamscale
I think you can definitely look at pro scripts and try to see how they're different, or eye catching, but I don't think you should try to emulate the style, or subject matter.
We are looking at a pro script to see how it’s different or eye catching. That’s exactly what we’re doing. I’m not trying to emulate the style or subject matter. I’m just looking at the whole situation to see what changes I can make to be a better, more salable writer.
That whole Milf thing was a joke. I was just using it to illustrate how easy it can be to throw together a premise like this. I consider myself creative enough to come up with many different kinds of original premises. I certainly don’t need to emulate this script in any way. This whole thread is for learning purposes only.
I don’t think there’s a boat to miss here. I think examining why a script sold is a terrific goal. I’ve learned a great deal already and I think this thread was worth it.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth or start any arguments.
Based on the posts I've read here, it sounds to me like most aren't that thrilled with this script, and feel that it really doesn't deliver. I could be wrong though.
Hollywood isn't always laughing its way to the bank. There are routinely HUGE financial flops...some of which can literally destroy an entire company. There's no secret formula to choosing a script that's going to be a huge success. The reality is that movie viewing is down from where it used to be. Higher ticket prices keep revenue fairly stable, but overall viewship is definitely down, as is viewer satifaction with the products we're given.
My adive would be to review a "successful" movie script adn then go about it to see why it was successful. What worked, why did it work? When looking at a script that ahs yet to prove itself, it's hard not to see its faults as well as its strengths.
I wish I could express myself better with words. Odd thing to say for someone that writes, I know, but to me at least, this script sticks out from the crowd. I think I have already said why. Some people say this is for the MTV crowd and teenagers. Maybe, I don't know. I don't fit into that category at all. I don't watch MTV nor am I young, far from it, but I still liked it. In fact I liked it enough that read it straight through. I thought it was an entertaining read. If I was a reader at a studio, I would certainly not toss this one in the trash nor say this was the best script ever, but of all the scripts I read (really bad to great) I would put this one in the top 5% or 10%. Wether people like the jokes or not or the story and what not, this script moved along and was at least sort of entertaining throughout. I don't remember it dragging anywhere. I didn't like Drew's speach at the end, but other than that I really enjoyed it.
Based on the posts I've read here, it sounds to me like most aren't that thrilled with this script, and feel that it really doesn't deliver. I could be wrong though.
No, D.S., you are mostly wrong there. This is a good script.
The structure is sound, the characters have good arcs, there are several good laughs, and the writing has that elusive "pop" factor, for the most part.
This is a good, marketable script with a built-in audience that is true to the "formula" and deserved to be sold.
What we are really after here is to dissect out some of what makes this script work.
You might not be crazy about it -- it is not the best thing I've ever read -- but I cannot deny that it works on the page.
My adive would be to review a "successful" movie script adn then go about it to see why it was successful. What worked, why did it work? When looking at a script that ahs yet to prove itself, it's hard not to see its faults as well as its strengths.
If there’s ever another discussion group for a produced script, maybe that can be the focus. For this one though the focus is to study a script that sold, not to examine how well it did at the box office. Selling a script is a success in and of itself. This script sold based on what an exec thought it was capable of accomplishing; what he or she projected it could accomplish. We’re examining how that decision may have been made and how we as writers might be able to produce a salable script.
This film may fail. The writer may never be heard from again. But the fact will always remain that she sold this script. And that’s more than most will ever do. Unquestionably she did something right. In my mind, at least, we have much to learn from this script, whether we personally like it or not.
Kind of hard for me to say much about it, since I haven't finished it, but right off the bat, I can tell it's not my cup of soup. This point is driven home for me based on comments from people in here who actually enjoy comedies, that are saying this isn't that funny, and needs another couple of rewrites to make it better. If a comedy isn't funny, to me that means that the script isn't that good, no matter what it looks or reads like.
I think I'm going to sit this one out and wait for the next one.
...right off the bat, I can tell it's not my cup of soup. This point is driven home for me based on comments from people in here who actually enjoy comedies, that are saying this isn't that funny, and needs another couple of rewrites to make it better. If a comedy isn't funny, to me that means that the script isn't that good, no matter what it looks or reads like.
Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal and Steve Tisch are producing for Escape Artists, along with Aaron Kaplan and Sean Perrone. Says Black, "When Jason and I read this, we have not laughed this much ever."
Agreed again. And I've said the same thing over and over about choices being a matter of personal opinion. Lucky for all of us, there are many different people out there whose personal opinion could come into play.
I'm sure the execs at Carlco thought the script for Cutthroat Island was just great also. They greenlit it, spent close to $100 million on the budget, and saw it gross less than $10 million in the US. It was listed as the biggest flop of all times and literally destroyed Carolco and all that were behind it.
Just so no one misunderstands me; when I say it’s all a matter of personal opinion; I mean that as in whether or not this script is funny.
It should be pointed out that although I myself thought it had its funny moments while others were rather flat, I still understand that others may find this script hilarious. I wouldn’t base my decision to purchase a script entirely on my own personal opinion of it. And I don’t think any smart executive would either.
Maybe that’s why scripts like Curthroat Island get made; because some people let their personal opinion stand in place of looking at what the public’s opinions might be.
I can see this film going either way, depending on rewrites. If they hired me to rewrite it, I would think it needs scenes of guys hatching plans to get Mandy in bed. Others don’t.
As someone’s younger sister, and looking back, I think my brother was certainly justified in worrying about me. And I think some justified concern is going to be what people expect. Because I think that’s what brothers and sisters will relate to. In a way this script fails to deliver on the brother/sister front as well.
But that’s my personal opinion. If I were an executive, however, from a business standpoint, I can instantly recognize the potential here.
But don't you see potential in lots of scripts? Lots of unporduced scripts from unporduced writers? I know I sure do. I also see lots and lots of movies that don't have any potential, based on the completely inane scripts they're derived from. And it's absolutely no surprise to me when I see a movie that's terrible, that doesn't even try, it turns out to be a financial failure.
Obviously I can't call 'em all correctly, but you might be surprised by my success rate.
Is this script from a first timer or a pro writer? If it's from a pro, it makes alot mroe sense that it got the attention it did, which I agree seems to be based on the title.
This script sold based on what an exec thought it was capable of accomplishing; what he or she projected it could accomplish.
Is the answer to this...
Quoted from Breanne
how we as writers might be able to produce a salable script.
There is no magic bullet, it's all a guessing game pretty much the luck of the draw from where we all stand. You could send out Bee Girl or Singles Camp or Devil in D Minor to 100 different executives and get absolutely no bites at all, but 101 could be the one that digs it, and you sell that script.
It's really about finding the right prodco as much as it is about writing. You just have to make sure the work is competent when you get to that point.
From the perspective of this script, I would imagine that an agent was involved, which got it to MTV and Escape Artists in the first place. Same concept, only it didn't have the limitations posed on it that we do.
One thing I noticed right away with this script was the moving quality it had. Both place and structure carried themselves together in a kind of chain. Both elements seemed to be in harmony with one another.
If anyone wants to help identify some of these shifts, then great.
From a time perspective, I read out the dialogue, imagined the scenery and tried to get a feel for the first scene. I used that sense of "fast and fidgety" that was rolling through in Pamela's dialogue.
From this, I clocked it in at just under two minutes for the first two pages which is right on schedule.
Into the third minute, Mandy makes her transformation on the train and whoosh!!! We're there with her in New York.
From the time she enters the train, does the transformation and we get a couple of reactionary shots, we've used about 30 seconds.
As she exits the train, does a scan of Penn Station, and has her bags neatly lifted, we're only three minutes in. It's not just that we're 3 pages in, but by my calculations, we truly are 3 minutes into the movie and having this Jamaican guy all Jamaican-like with a big smile just walk off with a couple of her bags-- is an excellent opener.
One of the things that I think makes this script salable is that Melissa knows the craft well enough that her moves of time and place together with character motivation work together in harmony.
Does anyone want to examine the shifts in the next 3 pages?
It's really about finding the right prodco as much as it is about writing.
Maybe it’s time to discuss how to do that. A lot of writers don’t know where to begin to get their script to the right company. I admit I have no idea where to send Bee Girl. I’ve never seen anything like it before.
That’s the thing though. Should the writer bother with what you personally want to write? Or should the writer focus on what’s marketable?
Who was it that said, “Amateurs write for themselves; professionals write for everyone else?”
But don't you see potential in lots of scripts? Lots of unporduced scripts from unporduced writers? I know I sure do.
Certainly. But often they aren’t immediately understood. With this script, you instantly get it. You read the logline and can instantly see it on screen. You can instantly see butts in the seats and money in somebody’s pocket.
Quoted from Dreamscale
Is this script from a first timer or a pro writer?
Maybe it’s time to discuss how to do that. A lot of writers don’t know where to begin to get their script to the right company. I admit I have no idea where to send Bee Girl. I’ve never seen anything like it before.
Indie prodcos looking for comedies. It's probably your best bet. From a budget standpoint, you would probably be better off pitching Singles Camp though. Have you tried the inktip route? I never have myself, but I've heard good things.
Quoted from Breanne
That’s the thing though. Should the writer bother with what you personally want to write? Or should the writer focus on what’s marketable?
I would think it's a little of both. When you write a spec, isn't it a movie that you'd ultimately like to see? Not in the sense of "just because you wrote it", but because you think it's a good idea and would pay to see it even if you hadn't written it? It's like that, and the trick is finding someone with cash (or at least access to it) that thinks the same thing. That yours is a movie that should be made.
Quoted from Breanne
Who was it that said, “Amateurs write for themselves; professionals write for everyone else?”
I've heard that before, but who said it escapes me. It is true though.
Like I said above, even if you're writing a script with a concept you truly love, you're still writing it in the hopes that someone else is going to like it.
The further you get down the line (or up I guess), the more you do it for someone else. Assignments? Pretty much nothing but the words on the page belong to you, and it's just your interpretation of their idea and what you think it is that they want.
It's somebody else's concept, and you're just doing the grunt work.
Okay, here's a little strange something about how things might come about.
Let's assume that there are more scripts out there that are salable than there are movies being made every year. The hard part is getting someone to read it, right?
I met a local lady last December who's spent 25 years in Hollywood on the production front. She was married to two big producers and she worked on some big movies and know some of the big players. We are currently doing several projects together... she has introduced me lately to producers and agents in the business. My point is that meeting these people and talking to them, I can not tell you how often "my friend" has told them I write and that I'm good (she's biased, I know) and they have asked me if they can read one of my scripts!! As many of you know, I've had a problem writing features, but do okay with shorts. I cannot tell you how BAD I have felt for not having anything to show these people. I can't exactly whip out a 5 page short and say "hey, read this". I now drive around with feature scripts by friends here at SS in my car (with their permission of course) at all times.
Because of my friend's contacts, I can clearly see how a lot of "luck" play into at least getting your script read. Is that fair? I don't know. What if I could get someone to read something I stick in a producer's face rather than have to try to go through an agency and such?
Anyway, my point being, I think some good scripts get lost before they even reach someone who matters, but maybe some gets moved into the production pipeline simply because someone who knew someone who knew someone got the script to the frontline. I could of course be wrong, but I know I will never again find myself in the situation where an agent or producer asks me if they can read something and I have to say no because I have nothing besides a few shorts...
Okay, here's a little strange something about how things might come about.
Let's assume that there are more scripts out there that are salable than there are movies being made every year. The hard part is getting someone to read it, right?
I met a local lady last December who's spent 25 years in Hollywood on the production front. She was married to two big producers and she worked on some big movies and know some of the big players. We are currently doing several projects together... she has introduced me lately to producers and agents in the business. My point is that meeting these people and talking to them, I can not tell you how often "my friend" has told them I write and that I'm good (she's biased, I know) and they have asked me if they can read one of my scripts!! As many of you know, I've had a problem writing features, but do okay with shorts. I cannot tell you how BAD I have felt for not having anything to show these people. I can't exactly whip out a 5 page short and say "hey, read this". I now drive around with feature scripts by friends here at SS in my car (with their permission of course) at all times.
Because of my friend's contacts, I can clearly see how a lot of "luck" play into at least getting your script read. Is that fair? I don't know. What if I could get someone to read something I stick in a producer's face rather than have to try to go through an agency and such?
Anyway, my point being, I think some good scripts get lost before they even reach someone who matters, but maybe some gets moved into the production pipeline simply because someone who knew someone who knew someone got the script to the frontline. I could of course be wrong, but I know I will never again find myself in the situation where an agent or producer asks me if they can read something and I have to say no because I have nothing besides a few shorts...
Perhaps it's better that it happened that way. It gives you more time to develop. If all you had was shorts at the time, then that was where you were at that time and there's nothing to be ashamed of. It just goes to show you how hard it is to create a good script that one would be willing to show in all seriousness.
Here, we are mostly posting for feedback and that's good, but I don't want to send anything off anywhere "as if" I think it's brilliant or even half solid, when I haven't gotten to that stage of illumination yet.
I know it's hard not to feel bad about "missing" and opportunity, but well... have a beer and forget about it. Here's a Sleemans from Canada.
Pia, I think you are 100% correct in what you just wrote. I completely believe that it's all a matter of being in the right place at the right time, and luck has alot to do with that. Some talent doesn't hurt either.
As someone else recently posted, 100 pro readres could read the same script and all could turn it down for one reason or another, but then the 101st reader could absolutely love it. Or, of the 100 readers, a few could love it, a few could hate it, and the rest could be indifferent.
Even the very best movies have extremely negative reviews from some critics. And the biggest piles of dogshit will get some positive reviews. Why? back to personal opinion again.
I watched the movie "Hatchet" the other night. I've been wanting to see it now for some time, because I read alot of great things about it...I also read some bad things but when a low budget horror flcik gets nearly 50% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I feel there's got to be some strong film making going on there. Wow, was I ever wrong, and shocked, cause this thing was terrible! Pretty much terrible in every aspect...except maybe for sheer over the top gore.
Again, bottom line here...why was ths heap made? How could it have garnished positive word of mouth? No clue whatsoever. I don't care what the screenplay looked like. I don't care how great it read or was written, because the story, plot, characters, scenes, settings...everything, was downright awful.
Someone liked the concept though for some reason and it was made, attracted cameos from a few horror mainstays, made it's money, and laughed its way to the bank. For me though, it left me quite angry and confused.
I sometimes think Horror movies, particularly low budget ones, abide a totally different set of rules. It may not be true, but it's just something I think.
The small budgets (1.5m for Hatchet) and high, high, high likelihood of a good ROI make producers and investors much more likely to invest in them.
Also, the guy who wrote and directed Hatchet (Adam Green) has been involved in every other project that ArieScope has produced, either as a writer, director, or producer. Could this be just a case of a few buddies making films together and managing to make them high profile? I'd say yes.
Yeah Shelton, I agree. Wasn't sure the budget was that low, but in thinking back about the piss poor setpieces, and horrific makeup on Mr. Crowley, I guess that makes sense.
Just shocked though with the overall plotting, again, based on the script. So much more could have been done, and some easy fixes were so apparent.
But again, you're right in that it's obviously a bunch of guys, who are most likely freinds, who have money and film making "talents", that are greenlighting films like this. There are numerous "bad" scripts in here in the same genre and spirit, that are actually much better and more interesting than this. Seriously! Would you agree?
For me it just goes back to my beliefs that a "professional" isn't always better than a pre pro script, and coneversly, a pre pro script can be much better than a pro script.
That's the reason I wrote my first feature... I'm currently on my second one. An extended Dark Side of Man horror. Both have low budget appeal. Few characters, few locations and nothing too expensive to create.
Sure they are both juvenile, btw I wrote them that way on purpose... back on topic, how much attention should we pay to comedies/horror that appeal to the low budget filmmmakers and how much should we just go wild and write whatever just to be awesomely different?
Hope this post made sense... sometimes it does to me, but others get confused...
There are numerous "bad" scripts in here in the same genre and spirit, that are actually much better and more interesting than this. Seriously! Would you agree?
I agree, wholeheartedly. In fact, I'm going to go on record as saying that I wrote one of them.
...how much attention should we pay to comedies/horror that appeal to the low budget filmmmakers and how much should we just go wild and write whatever just to be awesomely different?
Why can't you combine the two? Low budget and "wild" are definitely not mutually exclusive.
...how much attention should we pay to comedies/horror that appeal to the low budget filmmmakers and how much should we just go wild and write whatever just to be awesomely different?
That question makes perfect sense. I wonder about that one, too. Quite often.
That is at least part of the reason my own budget-buster (Starbuck) has been in hibernation for so long. Is there even the smallest of chances that will ever see the light of day? Probably not, but it might make a nice "calling card" script, once complete.
"The Farm" gets the occasional nibble -- but Starbuck? Not even a peep. And I do not kid myself that it ever will.
And I think of "Kill the Person Next to You" by Brea. Or Phil's Burnout. And George’s Fempiror, too.
Honestly -- are those kind of a waste of time for us? Are we ignorant to go with anything but low-budget at this stage?
Are we ignorant to go with anything but low-budget at this stage?
No matter what there will always be low budget films. And there will always be more low budget films than there are massive budget films. Even if you were able to sell a high budget film, you still need to sell the next script in order to have a career. Selling lesser budget films seems to me like a steady market and even once you have your big break, you may be tapping it more than you expect. So is concentrating on lower budget films a good idea? Hell yes.
We may be ignorant in some regards, but not in what we write, and why we write it. We write because we love to write. I think it's a wise choice to be able to write something that could be done on the relatively down low, but I believe we should always write whatever it is that we feel we want to write.
I truly believe that when it's all said and done, the cream will rise...it may take some time, but if you've got something special, someone, at some time will realize it. Let's hope at least, huh?
Off the subjext, I took alot to heart of what was written about my Fade to White script, and have "slashed" 8 pages and added an additional kill scene that will change the flavor of the initial buildup scenes, and changed the ending a bit, by adding some insight into Xavier and his ways.
I want to thank everyone for their valuable input and time invested in reading and discussing my script. I'm actualy entering it tonight at the Movie Deal Screenplay Contest. Call me crazy, but you just never know. Could be that 101st reader...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with writing a high budget script if it's a concept that you like/love. Yes, it may not be the best thing to pitch for sale as a first script, but it can get you work on an assignment, which is a very good thing.
Also, if you do get an assignment, that can snowball into other things like another assignment, a pitch for a low budget script, and eventually pitch for a high budget script, not necessarily in that order.
Moral? Don't limit what you write. It can always have some value in some context. Pitching is an entirely different story, but writing? Let it fly.
... back on topic, how much attention should we pay to comedies/horror that appeal to the low budget filmmakers and how much should we just go wild and write whatever just to be awesomely different?
On the subject of budget, I’d like to discuss how to determine the budget. With I Want to ___ Your Sister, Verdugo guessed the budget would top out at around $25 million. How can he know that?
This script has a billionaire character who drives expensive cars. It’s got a fire at a polo club. It has scenes at the NYSE (which will presumably be shot on location). It has a mansion with a big company party, etc.
How can one gauge the budget of a film? How do you know, for example, if your explosion is too expensive or if it’s no big deal?
The budget is duty of the producers to determine. I have seen some pro directors and producers in my country that have cut out of the film some scenes to keep their money because those scenes required alot of money. And no they were no explosions anyway... I think this script could fail if not the cast isn't chosen properly.
If Heath Ledger was alive he could have made a great Drew. RIP.
Verdugo said it right the budget should be like 20-30$ millions, and i think it will make it's money.
I told the logline to a friend who has nothing to do with scripts or filmmaking, and he was like "Cool, when it comes out". I think we need to test the loglines on moviegoers not people who work with scripts or film.
How can one gauge the budget of a film? How do you know, for example, if your explosion is too expensive or if it’s no big deal?
The quick and dirty advice? Keep out explosions, animals, and kids. All are expensive.
Other than that, there really is no way to know. I would imagine that a big chunk of that 25m is going to actors though, since I didn't find the script to be fundamentally expensive.
To keep the film cheap, just try to avoid explosions, car crashes, flying donkeys haha.
Another thing when you write a script for low budget is to know how many locations will be in the film. For example Sister had some classy locations that need money to construct.
If you look at Reservoir Dogs you see that the locations aren't that much constructed and easily to have. Expect the scene in the street.
So to me even locations determine the budget. Consider Sin City that was shot 95% on green screen. The only real location is the bar where Nancy played by Jessica Alba dances, but this decision has to do more with the style of the film.
Locations definitely definitely come int play in determining the budget. So do FX. Sin City cost around $40 Million.
The way I determine what a budget will/should be is just by comparing the movie to other movies I know the budget on. Of course some movies are done on the cheap and others over spend, but there's usually some correlation that can be drawn. I pretty much look up the budget of just about every movie I see, so I can get an idea of where the money went and why.
Low Budget films (Or at least films that COULD be filmed on a low budget) tend to share these traits:
Contemporary (anything set in past or future requires extensive sets), simple or no effects, character driven, few locations.
For me the almost perfect low budget script is Misery (1 location, 2 actors). Although the film itself had a reasnable budget, it is the sort of film that could be made by any level of filmmaker (obvioulsy not to the same level).
Definitely avoid using kids.... The regulations are UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!! And the younger they are, the more expensive it gets. Believe me, I looked into this regarding Burning Bridges.
Also avoid animals. Although inexpensive.... they usually require trained people to handle them and a MILLION takes.
Definitely avoid using kids.... The regulations are UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!! And the younger they are, the more expensive it gets. Believe me, I looked into this regarding Burning Bridges.
Also avoid animals. Although inexpensive.... they usually require trained people to handle them and a MILLION takes.
Thank you Pia, this is really good information.
Oh, my, I'm afraid I'm breaking the rules of this advice several times over in my Butterflies and Bones script. I've got children and an animal, but that's ok, I'm still going to write the script and with help from you all here at simply, it will turn out to be a unique and wonderful, well crafted story.
we were looking into using young kids for a short of mine, but the youngest of the kids was what made us abandon that idea. The youngest kid, was not allowed to work more than 1 hour/day, needed a a representative/guardian by his side at all times, needed his own trailer so he had a private place to go away from adults..... and so on and so on.... It was amazing!! Totally blew the budget for that short!
we were looking into using young kids for a short of mine, but the youngest of the kids was what made us abandon that idea. The youngest kid, was not allowed to work more than 1 hour/day, needed a a representative/guardian by his side at all times, needed his own trailer so he had a private place to go away from adults..... and so on and so on.... It was amazing!! Totally blew the budget for that short!
Unions are good though... right?
Yes they are for all of us I believe. All kinds of unity and unions for the better of everyone. I believe in unity. Unions in their strict sense protect the worker-- at least they try. But until the small percent that holds the world's resources truly begin to care about the needs of all, this world will continue in its egoistic decline. Nothing-- not unions, not technology will be able to help us until the human spirit changes on these levels.
What I'm going to do is take everyone's advice here with regards to market and budget. The Butterflies and Bones script, might be, as Bert mentioned, one of those scripts that sits on the shelf for awhile and isn't used as a calling card. It's there to be used later-- if in fact one is successful enough to sell a low budget script.
I'm going to write Butterflies and Bones even though it does involve a cat, (but that's a short scene) and a group of twenty kids in a few scenes.
This thread is helping me to learn the budget side of things and even though I've got several kids in some scenes, I can focus and determine just "how many" of these scenes I need to tell the story.
I only need a "little girl" about 4 yrs old for a very short scene in the beginning; so I can work hard on the time range of the scene and try and make it as easy as possible for the little lines that are spoken.
Back to the Sister script...
I need to go back and "imagine" the shifts from page 3 on to say page 6 and I'll note what I get from it.
It might be a little bit later than tomorrow since I'll be working a short bit at the hospital tomorrow, but it's on my to-do list.
I think Sister could be produced by an independent filmmaker, of course with some re-writes.
I don't really see this as something an "indie" filmmaker could easily do at all. At least not without a bunch of cash. Or did you just mean independent as in not a Hollywood studio? Of course this could be made without studio backing, but it would still be very expensive to film. IMHO of course.
First you need some talent to pull the comedy off, easier said than done. Then you have all these locations, the NYSE!!, a very upscale apartment, a BIG party at a huge estate involving lots of gorgeous people and a fire. A lot of crowd scenes and again, all these "hot" people probably aren't going to appear for free. You might be able to use a little less than gorgeous people, but then you take away some of what this movie is about, or am I wrong here.
Anyway, this looks like a fairly expensive film to make in order to successfully pull it off. At least to me.
I think an independent studio could pull it off. My thought anyway. What i meant is that with some re-writes it could be produced even by indy filmmakers. Of course, no big actors, and locations should have a second thought. But its not impossible.
The strange thing about figuring out a budget for a studio film is that it has less to do with the script and more to do with the companies involved. Summit is doing Countdown for $30 million because they have the structures in place because of their Resident Evil movies to do a CGI heavy film at that rate. For potentially $5 million less MTV is doing a pretty basic comedy.
The pattern budget for an MTV Film maxes out at around $25 million dollars. They read this script and determined they could do it within that range based on the way they structure productions and the relationships they have with other companies and with other divisions of their own corporate maze.
Could this movie end up costing more that $25 million? Sure. Or $15 million? Sure. That $25 million dollar cap factors into how much money they think a movie will bring in. The same is true of Summit in that they've done the math and know that $30 million is all they want to spend for X amount of return. It's all profit and loss and phantom Hollywood accounting.
For Sister the luxury objects will all end up being free loans to production. Because the demo for this movie is so coveted the product placement people will be lined up trying to offer luxury cars, clothes, electronics, liquor.
The cast. I have no idea but I don't see them spending a lot of money there. The target audience is a lot less demanding about names. The cheerleader from Heroes or one of the aging out Disney girls? A CW actor or a Judd Apatow alum or a rising standup? They'll sell the movie based on the title.
NY tax break and economic turmoil on Wall Street are in the movies favor. That means there are lots of empty office spaces, large room convention centers that are hurting, restaurants and bars that are suffering, people are having mortgage problems who will happily rent their homes for a lot less than they would last year. Horrible ethics? It's a business and they're trying to conform to budget.
Could a person with $1 million and a dream shoot Sister as written? No. It's a big and glossy Hollywood comedy and if you take away the gloss there's little to recommend it.
Scroll way up for my clocking of the first 3 minutes of the script.
As we enter the 4th minute, we're experiencing a strong mood shift that is amplified by the change in location-- and what a location! The police department. This scene has tremendous potential. Mandy might be grimacing as she watches some real weirdo being hauled in. Note that when Laurel says to Mandy, "I can't believe I got robbed in the first 5 minutes I was here, we are truly inside of the first 5 minutes of the movie; so it feels real. The scene here is only a minute long.
Now, at 5 minutes into the movie, we meet Drew for the first time at Scores Nightclub and his character is getting established in the next 2 minutes as he manipulates his clients with booze and strippers and a big fat hook with the bait of good times promised.
Juxtaposed against this scene and into the 7th minute, we've got a short 30 second scene with Mandy and Laurel exiting a cab and arriving, probably slightly disheveled looking, in front of Drew's. As they stare up at the ritzy apartment, we can "feel" their disgust.
This short scene provides relief from the initial 2 minutes with Drew and helps to shift us and feel some sympathy for Mandy as we enter into a solid 4 minute scene that gives us everything we need to know.
As we enter the 8th minute, we see the champagne lifestyle, we learn about Intern Bingo and Drew learns that yes he DID forget about his sister. It takes us about 11 minutes into the film.
This is a solid and moving set up.
Anyone want to move from the 11th minute on into the 20 minute mark and see what's cooking?
Lately, I’ve had trouble expressing things without them getting taken differently than I intended so I decided to “step back.” A lot of what I’m saying in this thread is just trying to hostess the thread; trying to keep the conversation moving along. I think there’s been some trouble differentiating between my personal opinions and simply trying to spark conversation. And I hate being misunderstood. It makes me feel inept as a writer.
The quick and dirty advice? Keep out explosions, animals, and kids. All are expensive.
Well, that puts a damper on me. I had come up with what I thought was a terrific premise, a good title, and a great story, fits the 3 act structure perfectly, great plot point transitions, a clear “big event,” a clear “crisis,” has a clear protagonist with a clear goal, clear opposition, and a good, clear, definitive ending……But one explosion.
So it’s low budget horror or rom-com, huh? Is that it?
So I need a good title and a good premise to a horror or a rom-com, no explosions, no animals, no children, few locations, few characters, etc?
Is anyone else looking at how to provide these things? I admit I try to look at what Hollywood is making and what’s going on in the world to see what I might be able to write that I might be able to sell. However; admittedly, I often gear toward what I want to write or personally see on the screen.
I realize some people take issue with that. They say, “Write what you want.” I agree with that…but only to a degree. For me, the bottom line is that if you want to make a living as a writer, you must write what will sell. So I always look for ways to “have it both ways.” I seek to write something that I can get excited and passionate about but can have a good chance of selling.
This discussion has really helped me to focus on that goal. I’m tired of messing around. My next script is going to be “pro quality” or whatever you want to call it. I have an idea as I said above and I think I might be able to work it out so that costs can be cut down. I’m seriously going for it.
Has this discussion affected anyone else at all in that regard? Or do most intend to keep doing everything the same way as you have been, with the expectation it’s all completely a matter of luck?
Let me clarify what I mean by luck, however. I definitely think luck, or whatever else you prefer to call it, has a role in whether or not a script sells. I think there’s always an element of chance. But I also firmly believe in preparing for opportunities; being ready when or if they arrive. And I believe one can increase one’s odds of selling. That’s what my goal is to do. And insight into that is what I intended this discussion to be about. I think it’s helped me.
So it’s low budget horror or rom-com, huh? Is that it?
Not at all. You can do other kinds of comedy, drama, a thriller. There's a lot of things to work with here.
There's nothing wrong with writing what you'd want to see on screen. I think a lot of spec scripts are done that way, and you don't necessarily have to refrain from using the things I mentioned above. It's not a dealbreaker by any means. I just think it reduces your pitch market a little.
I'm sure I'm going to ruffle some feathers here with what I'm going to say, but so be it.
I've been laughing out loud after reading a number of posts in here, and wondering if people are serious or joking around with what they're saying, and the direction they're headed
Shelton said if you want to keep your budget down, don't include animals, kids, or explosions...they're all expensive. Agreed, they can be expensive. All of a sudden, people are posting things like, "Oh my God, I've got animals in my script"..."I've got a bunch of kids in my script"...Oh no, I've got an explosion in my script". C'mon...let's get serious here.
I guess the key is to first of all have some kind of clue what budget you are shooting for, and try to keep the script at that level. The current discussion seems to be referring to "low budget" as "no budget DTV. I don't agree with that at all. For me at least, low budget means low in terms of a major motion picture release...like under $10 Million. If you want to write really low budet DTV fare, than be my guest, as there's obviously a HUGE market for it, and good scripts are not a pre-r-requisite .
I feel this the category of "under $10 million is where most first timers can be given a shot. Highly unlikely a first timer gets greenlit on a $50 million + investment. Can a pre pro get picked up on a $25 million budget pic? I think so...assuming it's really good, but why not focus on something a little more attainable?
Bottom line is that I believe we need to write what we know, what we enjoy, and what we'd like to see onscreen, assuming again, that isn't something like Mission Impossible 4. Know your audience and genre, be up on what previous, similar movies are grossing and what kind of budget they're being made for. Believe in yourself and what you are capable of, and go for it. Don't pull punches and never dance to someone else's beat!
Know your audience and genre, be up on what previous, similar movies are grossing and what kind of budget they're being made for. Believe in yourself and what you are capable of, and go for it. Don't pull punches and never dance to someone else's beat!
I find what you’re saying here to be contradictory. You say never dance to someone else’s beat. But then you also say we should be up on what previous, similar movies are grossing and what kind of budget, etc. It seems to me that’s dancing to someone else’s beat.
Do you want a production company to produce your script? That’s dancing to someone else’s beat. Do you want investors to finance the producing of your script into a feature film? That’s dancing to someone else’s beat. If you even look at other movies to see what’s selling or what audiences go to see, you’re dancing to someone else’s beat.
Just the act of writing a script you wish or hope to sell is an act of catering to or trying to please others.
Do you think it’s somehow compromising artistic integrity to compromise on a script in any way? If so, how will you do rewrites when some producer gives you script notes and tells you to make certain changes?
Part of my problem as a writer is that I’ve written stuff that’s “too different.” And not paid enough attention to the market. I believe in the scripts I’ve written. I believe every one of them could be successful. But they’re also very different and there are very few if any films that can be compared to some of them. Some of them are very expensive. What’s so wrong with looking at what I might write that’s more salable; more practical from a business standpoint?
I don’t feel I’m compromising artistic integrity in any way. I consider myself creative enough that that never even becomes an issue. I can inject myself into just about any formula. And I have no qualms with making changes in order to get my script produced. And I make no apologies for that. I consider it a challenge and I’m confident I’m up for the challenge.
So if a producer gave you script notes and told you he wanted certain changes made, certain revisions, are you going to tell him, “Sorry. That’s the way I wrote it. And I won’t change it?”
Bre, what I said, or maybe better, what I meant to say, was that each writer should be familiar with budgets and grosses of recently released movies (if you do this all the time, you'll become familiar with released movies in general, not just recently released movies).
That's not dancing to anyone elses beat at all, it's just being smart and up on what movies cost and what they gross.
When (note that I didn't say if...) a Production Company or whatever decides to produce my script, they're deciding that based on my script...that's not someone elses beat. Same with investors and the like, they're basing their decision on what I wrote.
Now, when changes need to be made, that's a completely different ballgame. At that point, I'd imagine that whatever tune is being played, I'll be dancing my ass off. Doesn't mean that I'll enjoy the music or the dance, but I'll have to do what I'll have to do, once things are set in motion.
We're not at that point yet, though. We can assume all we want about what sells, how it needs to look and read, etc., but in theory, what will make any of our scripts sell, is what we put into them as individuals.
Some people are totally cool with turning on the radio and listening to whatever is being broadcast. Not me though...I'm gonna pop in my Edguy CD, rock out, sing along, and dance to the beat I choose to dance to (and yeah, I definitely look pretty funny doing it!).
I think that most important thing we can do in order to break into the industry is to write to a lower budget. There really isn't much more I can do to stress that.
Sometimes we can get away not dancing to another's beat. We may even get away with that a couple of times. But ultimately we are going to have to appeal to wider and wider audiences if we want to make any money from a writing career. In appealing to wider and wider audiences we are going to have to make compromises. So we can't dance to our own beat but we can sure as hell sing. We can use our own unique voice to tell our stories.
The earlier we learn to do this, the easier time we will have making a career of writing. Though, of course, you can't really do it until you find your voice. And in the process of finding your voice you have to forge your own solitary path through the writing forest.
Now, when changes need to be made, that's a completely different ballgame. At that point, I'd imagine that whatever tune is being played, I'll be dancing my ass off. Doesn't mean that I'll enjoy the music or the dance, but I'll have to do what I'll have to do, once things are set in motion.
So much for never.
Quoted from Dreamscale
We're not at that point yet, though. We can assume all we want about what sells, how it needs to look and read, etc., but in theory, what will make any of our scripts sell, is what we put into them as individuals.
I see value in looking at what sells and seeing if there is anything I can do to increase the chances of selling a script if the opportunity arises.
For example; surely you’ll agree that a 90 page comedy has a better chance of selling than a 250 page comedy that’s not much different in any way but length. That’s not just an assumption. That’s something that’s pretty reasonably backed up with data.
I’ve learned things in this thread that will help me write a more salable script - before trying to sell it. And without compromising myself artistically. So I don’t see your problem.
Michael, I completely agree with you here. Writing to a lower budget makes complete sense from every angle.
I guess the only question some will have in here, is what is that lower budget? And what does that mean?
I don't think it necessarily means no budget DTV fare. I also don't think it means any exact amount, but I do agree that overall, it should be on the lower side of budgets, and definitely under $25/30 million.
I watch alot of really horrid movies...mostly horror movies that are DTV and very low budgets and production values. Just because they're low budget though, doesn't mean that the scripts have to be so pathetic.
If someone comes to you and says I want a horror movie with a budget under $2 million, no more than 6 characters, and 3 different settings, any one of us should be able to churn out a decent script that adheres to those requirements. Bottom line though is that no one is com ing to us with those type of assignments, so it's up to us to write what we can, and hope that somehow, someway, someone who matters will take notice.
Bre, what problem are you referring to? I don't have a problem with anything in here, I just pointed out that there's no reason to scrap what you've been doing (or the way you've been thinking) and write an ultra low budget script without animals, children, and explosions.
That is not the answer.
And your example of a comedy of 90 pages vs. 250 pages is a complete no brainer. No first timer should be writing anything over even 130 pages...ever (I know, many would say don't write anything over 110 pages even).
But, a 130 page script that has alot going for it can easily be thinned out and trimmed down. I'd much rather have something that contained too much, compared to not enough. Look at just about every new DVD release these days...look at all the deleted scenes that were actually shot, but not included in the final product. Sometimes, they even seem to work as they were originally intended. Nothing wrong with editing things out.
And, what is the "So much for never" comment supposed to mean?
And, what is the "So much for never" comment supposed to mean?
These seem contradictory to me.
Quoted from Dreamscale
…never dance to someone else's beat!
Quoted from Dreamscale
Now, when changes need to be made, that's a completely different ballgame. At that point, I'd imagine that whatever tune is being played, I'll be dancing my ass off. Doesn't mean that I'll enjoy the music or the dance, but I'll have to do what I'll have to do, once things are set in motion.
If someone comes to you and says I want a horror movie with a budget under $2 million, no more than 6 characters, and 3 different settings, any one of us should be able to churn out a decent script that adheres to those requirements. Bottom line though is that no one is com ing to us with those type of assignments, so it's up to us to write what we can, and hope that somehow, someway, someone who matters will take notice.
It's funny, because I had a meeting last Friday for something with pretty much that same layout, character and location wise. I'm not 100% on the budget, but I'm fairly certain that it's nowhere near 2m.
Writing to budget for a spec and for an assignment are vastly different in my opinion. With a spec, you're free to stretch those boundaries if you desire, and the end result is that you'll just have more producers that you can't pitch to because they simply can't raise that much cash.
For an assignment, you know what you're dealing with up front, and you're pretty restricted by it. As others have said, you don't have to be restricted by it creatively though, you just have to work around it. It can be a daunting process working on other people's ideas, but injecting a little bit of yourself and your style into it helps make it a lot better.
Selling a spec and then going back to rewrite it based on notes you get is a whole other story, and I might go into that later.
Mike, if talk of assignment writing is causing confusion, then I suppose it would be best to drop it. I’m trying to understand what DS is getting at here:
Quoted from Dreamscale
I've been laughing out loud after reading a number of posts in here, and wondering if people are serious or joking around with what they're saying, and the direction they're headed
Shelton said if you want to keep your budget down, don't include animals, kids, or explosions...they're all expensive. Agreed, they can be expensive. All of a sudden, people are posting things like, "Oh my God, I've got animals in my script"..."I've got a bunch of kids in my script"...Oh no, I've got an explosion in my script". C'mon...let's get serious here.
He seems to be saying we’re wasting our time here thinking of making any changes with the intention of increasing odds of a script sale. He seems to be implying it will make no difference. And more importantly, he seems to be implying that we’re compromising artistic integrity by doing so. I’m trying to understand how anyone can arrive at this conclusion.
Bre, what problem are you referring to? I don't have a problem with anything in here, I just pointed out that there's no reason to scrap what you've been doing (or the way you've been thinking) and write an ultra low budget script without animals, children, and explosions.
That is not the answer.
Well, it depends on whether or not you think making changes can increase your odds of a sale. If I’m thinking of writing something that obviously has less chance of a sale, wouldn’t I be wiser to choose to write something else with greater odds of a sale instead? If my goal is to sell a script?
Keep in mind that coming up with ideas is not an issue for me.
Mike, if talk of assignment writing is causing confusion, then I suppose it would be best to drop it. I’m trying to understand what DS is getting at here:
I'm not confused, I was just talking about the different ways one would need to write for budget.
Quoted from Breanne
He seems to be saying we’re wasting our time here thinking of making any changes with the intention of increasing odds of a script sale. He seems to be implying it will make no difference. And more importantly, he seems to be implying that we’re compromising artistic integrity by doing so. I’m trying to understand how anyone can arrive at this conclusion.
I think he was referring to how some commented on having certain things that I mentioned in their scripts and mentioned removing them for the sole reason of making it more low budget.
The only issue with that, is that while it would make it cheaper, it may not necessarily make it better, and it's now not saleable for another reason.
It's a very slippery slope, and the "luck" element is more of a "right place, right time" thing, but when you're in that place at that time, you have to be sure you have the best script you're capable of and...
another one. Because while they may not like the story of script A, they may like your writing and be interested in seeing what else you have.
I think he was referring to how some commented on having certain things that I mentioned in their scripts and mentioned removing them for the sole reason of making it more low budget.
Yes, Mike but I don’t think it was ever as cut and dry as DS made it sound. I wasn’t going to remove the explosion simply because you said that. But certainly it causes me to reevaluate the situation.
And I don’t think anyone else was going to start pulling animals and children from their scripts without looking at the whole spectrum of possibilities.
Maybe the problem is that we’re smarter than DS gives us credit for. I don’t make decisions so mindlessly.
Bre...I wasn't trying to say anything at all about people's intelligence in here. BUT, the example I gave about people all of a sudden worrying about having "expensive" things in their scripts, came off as comical to me.
As for the "luck" element...hmmm...luck is a tough word and concept, really. What is luck? Is it really what we think it is? Is someone lucky when they sit down at a slot machine in Vegas and hit $1,000 on a $1.00 token? Well, sure, I guess they sure think they were lucky. But the reality is that slot machine was going to pay out that $1,000 win to whoever sat down there at that time. By deciding to sit at that machine, the winner was indeed lucky, but in no way dos that make him/her a lucky person.
I'm sorry you don't see what I'm trying to say, and think I'm being contradictory, cause I'm sure not trying to be. Are there ways that we can make our scripts stronger, more saleable, better? Of course there are. Does writing a low budget script increase our chances? Probably, but that's just because more low budget movies get made each year than big budget movies.
I do not believe that selling a script, or breaking into the induistry are simply driven by luck, but "luck" has an awful lot to do with it. For instance, does luck have anything to do with a certain painting winning an award at a local fair? You may say, of course not. But what if 1 of the judges that voted for it, was actually a relacement judge that was only there because another judge had a flat tire and couldn't make it. What if that original judge would have voted for the painting that came in 2nd place? I'd call that luck.
Why does a certain script win a contest, when another script that it was competing against at a different contest won before? Is it a better script? Chances are, no, it's not a better script...it's just what worked the best with that panel of judges on that day.
Being at the right place, at the right time, saying the right things to the right people...these are what makes the difference. Put your best foot forward, believe in what you've done and who you are, and hope for the opportunity. When it presents itself, be ready...and start dancing!
Are there ways that we can make our scripts stronger, more saleable, better? Of course there are.
This is all this thread is about; looking at ways to do that.
Quoted from Dreamscale
I do not believe that selling a script, or breaking into the induistry are simply driven by luck, but "luck" has an awful lot to do with it.
I never said chance had nothing to do with it. I think it does and quite frankly I can’t see how anyone can honestly say it doesn’t. I got beaten up over saying that very thing in the Countdown thread.
Of course chance is a factor. Personally, I agree with you that it’s a big factor. But it’s not the only factor. And the study of those other factors, however small they may be, is the reason for this thread. You seem to me to think it’s a waste of time to study those other factors. I don’t agree. If that’s comical to you, then laugh away. But I don’t know why you’re here if you think we’re wasting our time.
Bre, I've obviously offended you or upset you, and if that's indeed the case, I apologize. Not my intention at all.
And I do agree with you that exploring any and all possible factors that increase ones chance of breaking in, is far from wasted time.
But again, I can't deny that some of the earlier threads came off as very comical, just based on the budget issues/discussion. I mean, c'mon, there are tons and tons of extremely low budget drek out there that have lots of animals, children, and explosions. To say...or think that by cutting these aspects out of a script make it more saleable, to me is very foolish.
Now, if you are literally wriitng to meet a low budget, does it make sense to try and steer clear of these sort of things? Sure it does. Is it easier to film without animals, children, and explosions? Sure it is. But let's not get bogged down on this as a concept for a successful breaking in script, cause it's just not.
All I'm trying toi say is that we each have to "know" what our desired genre is, what our desired budget looks like. We need to understand that certain genres, have certain gross potentials and parameters. We need to understand this so we can write a script that has commercial and financial possibilities.
The safest and best bet is always on the little engine that can, not the big one that should.
...I often gear toward what I want to write or personally see on the screen. I realize some people take issue with that. They say, “Write what you want.” I agree with that…but only to a degree. For me, the bottom line is that if you want to make a living as a writer, you must write what will sell. So I always look for ways to “have it both ways.” I seek to write something that I can get excited and passionate about but can have a good chance of selling.
You do both. Write your personal scripts and do some commercial stories. If somebody likes your writing but not a specific script, they will ask "what else do you have?" Your scripts are your portfolio. Diversify and always have something else ready to show. The more "quality" scripts you have to offer a reader, the more serious you will be taken.
I’m tired of messing around. My next script is going to be “pro quality” or whatever you want to call it. I have an idea as I said above and I think I might be able to work it out so that costs can be cut down. I’m seriously going for it.
I think your focus should be on the right premise and not the cost.
I definitely think luck, or whatever else you prefer to call it, has a role in whether or not a script sells. I think there’s always an element of chance. But I also firmly believe in preparing for opportunities; being ready when or if they arrive. And I believe one can increase one’s odds of selling. That’s what my goal is to do.
Luck is like winning the Lottery. "Creating Luck" is attending the same party as Spielberg or Cruise. Take a look at the Black List. Those scripts have been read by people in the Industry. Most of the screenwriters on that list have agents and/or managers (a whole 'nother topic). Those scripts are on the front line, waiting to be picked up. The question IMO isn't how Melissa sold her script. But how can we get Read? It is a monumental achievement to get read in Hollywood and then recommended. Making the Black List is an elite accomplishment. It is like making the Olympic team. The Gold Medal is a sell.
So, for the purpose of this thread, reading "... ____ Your Sister" is examining but a fraction of why it sold. Look at all of the things that script had going for it -- besides having a great premise and being nicely written. Melissa Stark has both a law degree and an MFA in screenwriting from USC. She has a BA from Georgetown. She has an agent and a team of managers (although I can't say at what point she got representation). She lives in LA. The Contacts this woman has compiled must be mind-boggling. And she went to SC! Insiders say there is SC and the others. I had a screenwriting teacher who went to USC. This guy also won 1st in whatever category at the Austin Film Festival in the mid-'90s. He said that winning at Austin got him tons of inquiries, for a few months. The SC degree will work its magic for the rest of his life. The bottom line, we can mirror Melissa Stack's script-writing quality, but we can't mirror her life. In Stack's case, it is probably more about career management than anything else. She's a very good writer, but a brilliant career planner. I'm apologize for trumpeting such negativity. This thread is important for discussion about nuances of a "sold" commercial screenplay. In the future, maybe we can find a sold script from a writer in Armpit, USA. You know, from Pia's hometown or Mike Shelton's block. That would be worth major discussion.
In the future, maybe we can find a sold script from a writer in Armpit, USA. You know, from Pia's hometown or Mike Shelton's block. That would be worth major discussion.
Abe, you, my friend, are a bright individual. Obvioulsy not sure who you are, but your comments almost always seem to be right on. Get me a script of yours...quick!!! OK, sorry...
Seriously though, you are right on, and you make your points in a way that probably won't piss anyone off. I agree with you 100%, but seem to come across as trouble for some reason, when I try to make the same points. I'm just not as eloquent...or something...hmmm...
I obviously think differently than most in here, but when it actually comes down to the nitty gritty, I'm most likley in agreement alot more than you all think.
In terms of this thread, which has really changed from the "Fuck Your Sister" thing, I hope we've all learned something. And that is that we all have different thoughts and beliefs about "how" to sell a script, but we all share the same enthusiasm, and probably desire...everyone approaches things differently. Lots of differnt trails and paths that lead to the same endpoint. We all want to get there, and hearing differing points of view can hopefully...only help.
Sometimes we say the same thing, but speak in a different language.
Hm... while I admit to not having read the script on this one, having read at least the most recent pages about writing whatever kinds of scripts, I can throw out a few things. There are scripts you write to whatever requirements, and then there are scripts you write because you have an awesome idea and you've just got to write it. The latter can be considered a script for you to just write and maybe someone will make it someday.
But the one you write to sell... well, restrictions force you to be creative. They force to come up with solutions to your stroy that you would never consider in your free-flowing "awesome idea" environment where anything goes. If you know you've got five people, a house, and only old school effects, what would you come up with?
What's that? Why would you even consider such a thing? Why would you want something restricted so tightly? Two reasons. First, anyone could make that for practically nothing. Second, you'll grow as a writer forcing yourself think inside a box like that.
As writers, we don't really think about budgets much, and we might even claim to not know anything about how much something costs, but let's be realistic. We know on a basic level that more people cost more money. We also know that more places cost more money. We also know that downtown NYC costs more than highway in the middle of no where. We can surmise very easily that despite the relative silimarities between the shooting styles of Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, there was a huge bugdetary difference between the two. Forest versus blowing up a city. Three people versus hundreds.
Also take this into consideration on a site like this. Filmmakers do visit this site. They do poke around looking for something to make. They're all broke. Which flick do you think they'll consider? Your multi-million dollar masterpiece (which could well be the best script this site has ever seen complete with children, exploding animals, and a guest appearance by Kermit the Frog) or the simple one location drama that plays out rather nicely?
If you're only starting out writing, then be free with your ideas and write whatever you want to to get the hang of the craft. If you've been around the block once or twice, there's no reason not to have a few micro-budget flicks in your personal library.
Hm... while I admit to not having read the script on this one, having read at least the most recent pages about writing whatever kinds of scripts, I can throw out a few things. There are scripts you write to whatever requirements, and then there are scripts you write because you have an awesome idea and you've just got to write it. The latter can be considered a script for you to just write and maybe someone will make it someday.
But the one you write to sell... well, restrictions force you to be creative. They force to come up with solutions to your stroy that you would never consider in your free-flowing "awesome idea" environment where anything goes. If you know you've got five people, a house, and only old school effects, what would you come up with?
What's that? Why would you even consider such a thing? Why would you want something restricted so tightly? Two reasons. First, anyone could make that for practically nothing. Second, you'll grow as a writer forcing yourself think inside a box like that.
As writers, we don't really think about budgets much, and we might even claim to not know anything about how much something costs, but let's be realistic. We know on a basic level that more people cost more money. We also know that more places cost more money. We also know that downtown NYC costs more than highway in the middle of no where. We can surmise very easily that despite the relative silimarities between the shooting styles of Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project, there was a huge bugdetary difference between the two. Forest versus blowing up a city. Three people versus hundreds.
Also take this into consideration on a site like this. Filmmakers do visit this site. They do poke around looking for something to make. They're all broke. Which flick do you think they'll consider? Your multi-million dollar masterpiece (which could well be the best script this site has ever seen complete with children, exploding animals, and a guest appearance by Kermit the Frog) or the simple one location drama that plays out rather nicely?
If you're only starting out writing, then be free with your ideas and write whatever you want to to get the hang of the craft. If you've been around the block once or twice, there's no reason not to have a few micro-budget flicks in your personal library.
Normally I wouldn't re-post a large post; I'd only take a sample, but this one calls for repeating.
George, your words are intelligent and make perfect sense.
Thanks everyone who contributed to the thread. I think this thread is basically done. If there’s anyone else who wants to talk about anything, speak now. Otherwise, Bert, I think you can go ahead and lock it up.
A lot of other things are coming up at the board soon and I don’t see a lot else happening here. Thanks everyone.
Thanks everyone who contributed to the thread. I think this thread is basically done. If there’s anyone else who wants to talk about anything, speak now. Otherwise, Bert, I think you can go ahead and lock it up.
A lot of other things are coming up at the board soon and I don’t see a lot else happening here. Thanks everyone.
Breanne
Looking forward to the other Script Club, i have suggestions. Let's take a shot on a thriller or drama.
This script club has been great.
Cheers Nik
P.S: Breanne you did a great job with this thread. My best wishes.
Sorry I have't particpated much in this. I wanted to. PC issues. But I read a lot of pages and Breanne don't take this the wrong way, but you are so confusing to me.
Will Script Club VI be produced or unproduced?
Bee
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
We will give the weekend for wrap-up and any last-minute thoughts.
Quoted from Busy Little Bee
Will Script Club VI be produced or unproduced?
Script Club will take a breather during the upcoming One Week Challenge.
But when people feel it is time for another, an unproduced member script will be selected. I have questioned "management", and they prefer that route.
That is not to diminish the very interesting conversations that IV & V have produced, but when SC-VI happens, a member script will be selected, so give that some thought.
I enjoy these SC things myself. I like both unproduced and produced scripts and regardless of which one we do, I think it's good for everyone to do a bit of reading features.
I thought we said sometime ago that we would do mostly member's features, but every now and then, like every fifth or so we should read a produced one. We all want to learn how to be better screenwriters and it's good to read and discuss what's selling in Hollywood, but at the same time I think helping each other fix a script to be the best it can be might be even more beneficial. at least for those who have managed to write one... I'm on my second btw! and that was not a hint either. Just happy about it is all.
I want to thank you, Breanne, for hostessing this and to everyone who participated.
This has been a positive learning experience. I feel that this thread didn't have the tomfoolery going on that the Countdown Thread had probably because people weren't attaching themselves to negativity so much; rather, they were trying more deliberately to analyze its positive qualities. Granted, it may have been easier to do with this script, but that too I suppose is a matter of opinion.
We did discuss budgets. We learned about writing in and outside of the box. We might have gained a better sense of writing a solid set up, a better sense of linking strong incidents together that appear as cinematic and how we can make the words read in their presentation, as cinematic.
The Script Club V has been a very worthwhile study conference.
Honestly, one thing the threads examining pro scripts have done is cause me to reassess the advice I give on unproduced scripts. I’m not sure it’s necessary anymore to review unproduced scripts. Sure someone may offer advice that can improve the script. But is it necessary? I’ve learned that a script doesn’t have its salability reduced because it’s flawed.
I’ve learned that when it comes to selling to Hollywood, a cliché, easy to follow script is preferable to a more complicated one, even if the more sophisticated one is a better story.
So I think you have to decide before you start writing exactly who you plan to market it to and write it stylistically accordingly.
I said in the Countdown thread that there were scripts I’d read from unproduced writers that I’d rather see on the screen. My feelings haven’t changed with I Want To ___ Your Sister. There are unproduced scripts from unproduced writers I’d rather see than this script. The biggest difference I see is the simplicity of storytelling.
If you want to cater to the independent market, then I think you can write a more sophisticated story, so long as cost won’t kill it. If you want to write for Hollywood, it seems to me the important thing is to write it very simplistically. No offence to Hollywood, but it seems to me basically that you must write the script so that even a moron can understand it.
Breanne don't take this the wrong way, but you are so confusing to me.
I’m very sorry about that. I tried to keep the conversation moving. I think sometimes people got too hung up on specific things I said instead of just taking them generally and letting them initiate conversation. At least that’s the way it seemed to me. I tried to be as clear as I could. But thanks for pointing it out. I’ll try and work on it.
You know that acronym: Kiss? Keep it simple, stupid.
I think it makes a lot of sense in the Hollywood world as well as in life in general.
Take cooking: you can get really complicated and generate some wonderfully complex tastes, but sometimes, the complexity isn't called for and even makes things difficult.
I know one time I was watching Chef Ramsey attempting to resurrect a dying restaurant and one of the key problems was: too much complexity in the dishes. They weren't even relying on the fresh fish they had right on their doorstep.
You know, I've made wonderful potatoes with a simple glaze of caramelized onions and some fresh parsley and balsalmic vinegar. There's no magic to it but simplicity and fresh ingredients.
Sometimes, I wish I could keep that in mind when I'm writing as I try often to get overly complicated and I don't think it's necessary to tell a good story.
Your points on Hollywood's scripts often being simple and the difficulties of determining and making a script come in line with an indie or big market audience are excellent and knowledge that we can bring with us in our future works.
Most great stories are essentially simple ones are they not?
Look at Drama from the days of Sophocles, through Shakespeare to the present day. Sophistication tends to come in how you tell the story, what you reveal along the way and the depth of your themes. The stories that last, are usually very simple indeed in terms of their premise.
Martin Scorcese said that a great film is merely one strong throughline with 8 great scenes.
The nature of film is that it is only relatively short. It's perhaps not the best vehicle for overly complicated stories, novels are. The biggest market for films is simply escapism. A way of people taking their minds of the mundaneity of their lives.
No offence to Hollywood, but it seems to me basically that you must write the script so that even a moron can understand it.
The thing to keep in mind is that of an entire gross for a film about 70% comes from overseas sales and most of that 70% is comprised of non-English speakers.
Look at the earnings of "smart" films like Memento or Thank You For Smoking which are more complicated than Sister. They didn't make any money overseas. If I were a car manufacturer why would I design a car that I could only market in a few countries because it could only really be driven in those countries?
Look at the earnings of "smart" films like Memento or Thank You For Smoking which are more complicated than Sister. They didn't make any money overseas. If I were a car manufacturer why would I design a car that I could only market in a few countries because it could only really be driven in those countries?
I believe there's a guy named Steve Jobs who can relate to that one, but after 30 years, it looks like people are starting to notice that little efficient machine known as an Apple.
Pages: 
Author
Script Club V: I Want To _____ Your Sister
Logged
