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.
As the new year begins, I would like to consider what comes next for this exercise. Who is our next victim? Pia said she had something she wanted input on on the previous thread, but I also wanted to make sure all was fair in the discussion to pick it.
I have not had the time to re-write any of them yet and now I have a couple of other things I want to complete before the end of the month, but I'm still interested in the SC and will participate.
Maybe we can do someone elses or maybe a pro script? I'm game for anything. Whatever you guys want to to.
I'm personally always biased towards people around here who want some in-depth looks into their own stuff that maybe a group discussion would help if they're looking to actively rewrite. Obviously, we're not looking for those desperate-for-a-read types, but more those who've been read and who have revised, but need a leg up on what isn't working. Those people whose script feedback usually comes out with an "it's awesome, I love it!", but they know it just doesn't feel done yet.
Are we looking to punch holes in the Godfather? Sure, why not? I still think the Italy section was boring...
I think it might be best to wait a few weeks, we have the Shiva game and the two week challenge coming up. Could we maybe start the script club after that?
Who knows I might have a feature ready by then, my plan is to have it written by the time I go back to work in two weeks.
The Shiva game is minimal when it comes to time, and we'd need to find a script to read first. The two week challenge is a good point, and we'll see when Phil brings that together and who is affected when the time comes.
Though I think we should wait a few weeks to start, probably like three to give reads a chance to happen for the TWC, I think trying to come up with the script we will read is a task we can tackle. And who knows, it might take us that long anyway.
I don't know about the Black List scripts - they all seemed a bit boring to me this year. What about a classic script from some movie we all would have seen? We haven't done that yet. Unless some SS member has a script they want done.
The script is old so format wise it's not exactly what we are used to reading nowadays, but perhaps we can look past that and instead concentrate on story and characters...
Folks, I have been reading Save the Cat over Christmas and was wondering whether it would be a good idea for the script club to look at producing a beat sheet for the script we discuss? it could form the template and structure for how the discussion moves forward?
It does not have to be Save the Cat's, I guess there are a few alternatives but they all share the same idea, a quick way of mapping out how a scripts story is told. At the end of the discussion we could have the beat sheet/template mapped out so a quick glance could tell us exactly how the script is structured.
I would guess many people have read Save the Cat but in case you haven't this is Blake Snyder's beatsheet below, the numbers in parentheticals denote the page number it should fall on.
I must say I have read quite a few screenwriting books in the last year and this is the one that has really helped me fully understand structure. It is amazing how movies I can sit and beat out with this sheet and they all seem to fit pretty close. Obviously page numbers are tweaked depending on the length of the script.
Any it is only a thought but no harm in raising the question I guess.
Not to be my usual critical self, but I dislike this idea very much, as it once again says that things need to be a certain way...and they don't. I dislike "structured" structure so much! Seriously, there are so many movies out there that do not follow any certain "classic" structure...and the ones that work are the ones that blaze the way for new things.
I understand all too well how just about everything follows the same path and because of that, we know damn well exactly where it's going, when it's going there, and how it's gonna turn out.
Sorry, sure I'll get a bunch of flack, but that's ok. Can't help the way I feel about this subject.
No worries, I was worried about raising the idea as I did not want to turn this thread into a debate, we all have our own ideas which of course is a good thing and I don't want to get bogged down in semantics. I just thought I would throw it out there as a way of bringing some structure into the script club discussions.
I think if that's the way you want to analyze the script then go for it. Do the beat sheet if you think you will benefit from it. Just don't expect everyone else to follow the same line of analysis you are.
Yeah, I didn't mean to be a dick, but whenever someone comments that a certain event didn't occur at a certain time, etc, I just have to disagree. If it works when it's all said and done, chances are good that it works period.
Sorry for being critical...it is still technically the end of the Holidays (the way Christmas and New Years fell on a Thursday), and I still need to attempt to be nice.
Yeah, I didn't mean to be a dick, but whenever someone comments that a certain event didn't occur at a certain time, etc, I just have to disagree. If it works when it's all said and done, chances are good that it works period.
Sorry for being critical...it is still technically the end of the Holidays (the way Christmas and New Years fell on a Thursday), and I still need to attempt to be nice.
Didn't mean to come off as I probably did.
Dude, never thought you were a dick, and your post was fine. No worries.
You are wrong however, structure plays a huge part in just about everything single movie made and even novel written. If you do not get that then you really need to if you want to be a screenwriter. Sure 10,000 monkeys could bang away on a typewriter until they come up with the screenplay for 'The Exorcist' but it would be much easier for a screenwriter to plot the story using plot points and well tried and tested formulas that have been used since the very beginnings of the movie industry. No studio would ever think of hiring a writer who did not understand the importance of basic story structure.
You would be amazed how many movies you think are "original" actually follow the structure. And no I am not necessarily talking about Save the Cat, that is not an original idea really, it is just a new way of describing these basic rules.
All I want to try and do is introduce a little structure to the script club, make sure we do not go off on tangent. Like any project we should spend a little time up front to ensure we know what the aims are of the exercise. What do we expect to get out of it, what are out goals. And then put something in place that makes sure we achieve these goals.
I personally would want to work out why The Exorcist is such a great movie, is it a great script? does it hit all the marks or does it differ from them and if so how and why?
What I am not interested in is trying to make it better, i cannot understand at all how trying to improve a pro script makes us better writers. This movie is one of the greatest films ever made in its genre, I as a writer would be quite happy to have written one of the greatest films in its genre it would be good if we could spend our time to try and figure out why and not waste our time trying to turn it into something it is not.
i don't do certain plot points at certain pages. not my style. in fact i think its lame. and if structure is gonna play a part this time around, count me out. ahah cuz i know nutin about it.
How about "THE LOW DWELLER" its by a newcomer, Brad Ingelsby. He sold his first feature for 650.000$. The script will be directed by Ridley Scott and star Leonardo Di Caprio.
Now the guy has 4 in development scripts... uh-huh.
We did discuss a sold and in production script already. I think what would be great about The Excorcist script is that it is a great film and it would be good to analyze the script and try to figure out exactly what in the script makes it so good so we can perhaps learn something.
And I'm getting tired of the black list. Took me forever to download them all.
The Exorcist is an interesting choice. I thought the film a tad overrated, but at the same time, it was successful for some reason. I imagine shock factor had a lot to do with it. After all, it's hard to get past the twisting head and the 14 year old "masturbating" with the crucifix.
I did overlook actually reading the OWC scripts, so it's worth at least waiting till we get past that. We can also see if by that time, we're still down with The Exorcist, another produced script, or whatever else floats by that's shiny.
The Exorcist on SS is not actually the script, it seems to be a transcript done by some fan, it is the same one floating about many of the sites. Probably not a good one to do anyway.
i don't do certain plot points at certain pages. not my style. in fact i think its lame. and if structure is gonna play a part this time around, count me out. ahah cuz i know nutin about it.
No worries slabby, Is anything you personally would like to get out of it? Anything you want to improve on as a writer?
You know, structure is actually central to pretty much every story. Every story has a beginning, middle, and end, and though people do endeavor to subdivide those thre points into categories, every writer has at least a sense of where their story begins, where it ends, and what it has to go through to get there.
If you've ever written something you consider a story, it contains a beginning, middle and end, and so contains a structure.
You know, structure is actually central to pretty much every story. Every story has a beginning, middle, and end, and though people do endeavor to subdivide those thre points into categories, every writer has at least a sense of where their story begins, where it ends, and what it has to go through to get there.
If you've ever written something you consider a story, it contains a beginning, middle and end, and so contains a structure.
Structure I think can be a hard animal to master and it's probably best learned by implementing plot points in some kind of fashion. After that, you can go ahead and be a rule breaker all you want, but it doesn't hurt to learn to establish a firm grip on it first. I think it is a good and necessary thing. You have to learn to walk before you can run and do an obstacle course.
The Exorcist is an interesting choice. I thought the film a tad overrated, but at the same time, it was successful for some reason. I imagine shock factor had a lot to do with it. After all, it's hard to get past the twisting head and the 14 year old "masturbating" with the crucifix.
I did overlook actually reading the OWC scripts, so it's worth at least waiting till we get past that. We can also see if by that time, we're still down with The Exorcist, another produced script, or whatever else floats by that's shiny.
When we were young and our heart was an open book... Well, that's how I feel about the Exorcst, meaning: We hadn't achieved that level of shock yet in film and I think that's what made it successful. Today, it doesn't seem like it's "so freaky", but back then, we hadn't pushed all kinds of boundaries like we have today. It might seem tame today compared to other films today and that's weird to think.
I wouldn't mind studying it. I also wouldn't mind studying a movie with an actor like Nicholas Cage. He's an actor that I feel really projects and it would be interesting to see a script that he worked with and enjoyed. Also, something that is more fringe would be interesting too.
There's more to the Exorcist than the creepy parts. At least in my book. It's also a great drama. I think it would be a great script to study, because there are so many layers to that film...
I do believe that is the correct script. It's just in html, not a neat and tidy modern pdf... I think. Maybe Don would know.
There's more to the Exorcist than the creepy parts. At least in my book. It's also a great drama. I think it would be a great script to study, because there are so many layers to that film...
I do believe that is the correct script. It's just in html, not a neat and tidy modern pdf... I think. Maybe Don would know.
Pia, this is a bit off topic, but do you remember a show in the 70s called "Sixth Sense"? I was only a kid (and I also loved the Brady Bunch) but I loved that show!
There's more to the Exorcist than the creepy parts. At least in my book. It's also a great drama. I think it would be a great script to study, because there are so many layers to that film...
I do believe that is the correct script. It's just in html, not a neat and tidy modern pdf... I think. Maybe Don would know.
I found a site that called it a transcript and it was the same thing as is linked to from SS.
I read a few pages and it does seem very clunky, not a very easy script to read at all. some very, very long paragraphs too.
EDIT: Sorry dude, threw that link in a bit sharpish before. It does seems to be a transcript. Not sure if it changes anything but I have read a few pages and to be honest it is a bloody awful attempt at a script, no attempt to make it read well at all.
I only managed to find the audio book and the actual book. No screenplay. And that does look like a transcript to me. Now with all this discussion i want to re-watch the movie.
Any script that's 40-50 years old is not going to read zippy like what we are used to nowadays.
I've read Rosemary's Baby and that was a slow chunky read for me.
We can read something new too. I don't care, but something a little deeper than some of the fluff out there would be good if we actually going to study a script. At least IMHLO.
We could give Misery a try, why not. But considering what Pia says:
Quoted Text
We can read something new too. I don't care, but something a little deeper than some of the fluff out there would be good if we actually going to study a script.
You all would do me a BIG favour if you guys would consider the script from my PERSONAL FAVOURITE WRITER/DIRECTOR of the moment, the one who keeps me writing because --- oh hell, i'm talking for IN BRUGES!
You know, structure is actually central to pretty much every story. Every story has a beginning, middle, and end, and though people do endeavor to subdivide those thre points into categories, every writer has at least a sense of where their story begins, where it ends, and what it has to go through to get there.
If you've ever written something you consider a story, it contains a beginning, middle and end, and so contains a structure.
I know theres a beginning, middle and an end....I just meant I don't follow the specifics of a particular thing happening on a particular page and particular stuff like that.
I'm with Slabby here for sure. I don't like when people think that certain things have to be on certain pages, or have clearly happened by a certain page. I hate it when people try to write a script withen such guidelines.
Anyone who enjoys movies, knows how they flow, how they work...and don't work. No reason at all to think that scripts have a to be a certian way, because they just don't.
yeah transcripts are very annoying for me. The exorcist is a very good one to study, I would say the dark knight, but considering i've seen it six times and have read the script twice, well probably not. Benjamin Button? no...no...as freaking great as it was it's way too long. I'm with Nik for Rosemary's Baby, or In Bruges
Isle 10- A series I'm currently writing with my friend Adam and it will go into production soon. Think The Office meets 10 Items or Less.
Jaws - The Revenge was actually a joke, as it was a terrible flick, but actually, Cornetto may be on to something with Jaws. It was a fantasitic book and a great movie that everyone has seen.
I tell you why In Bruges. Because it's a script that mixes drama, comedy, crime, thriller in one, and does a good job with it. Those who have seen the movie, will know what I'm trying to say. Anyway if it will be another one, so be it.
I'm a bit of a gore hound I admit, but any horror is fine with me.
NiK, no one is trying to dismiss you. It just doesn't seem that many people are familiar with it yet. I have the script, but I haven't read it nor have I seen the film. I'm sure it's great though, but since I don't know too much about it, I don't really want to vote for that one either. It's not up to me though. Everyone has a say in the pick.
Actually, since horror is a huge and popular genre around here, finding a solid horror script would be a really good idea. Maybe by determining why that script is considered a good one, we can shed light on why so many don't work.
Has anyone seen "The Strangers" script? The movie was decent to good, but I would imagine the script was very short and bland. Maybe I'm totally wrong though. There was so little dialogue and real action.
I don't mind as long as it is a decent script and/or a film that is generally considered a good example of the genre. All the ideas put forward on here so far seem to be good choices.
I'd definitely be up for The Strangers. I'm pretty sure that Bertino was an unproduced writer when this was optioned. He directed as well, and it did very well at the Box Office. Plus, it's rather recent (I see this draft was a first draft from 2004, but it would also be interesting to see what changes were made and if they were changes that made the movie the success that it was.
Yes Nik, you're correct. Very simple, but well done. It was a bit dull for me, but I did leave the theater with a positive feeling towards it. I'll read this script either way, cause I'm curious now as to how it reads and how it differs from the final movie version.
The movie version had a very, very slow build with only 2 characters, 1 setting, and nothing of interest going on. But what I liked about it was that it was different, it wanted to be different, and it didn't care about bucking the system.
I will be reading this not having seen the movie, but will watch after I have read the script.
I always assumed it was a remake of a French movie called 'Ils' which was a brilliant film and had no desire whatsoever to watch it. But if this screenplay is dated 2004 then it can't be a remake and the similarities are just a coincidence. It has worked out well because I love reading scripts when I have not seen the movie yet.
The success of The Strangers is that is a simple-classic horror. No Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees or whatever his name is and no Michael Myers.
The story that happens in the script, sounds like it could happen to every one, especially to you Dreamscale
Now, I'm a little confused. What are we deciding here?!
Well. Lets not bash the original Halloween. That can easily happen to anybody. A psycho killer killing babysitters on Halloween for no reason. There are people like that.
Don't you think you should wait until we have a final decision about which script we are going to read? Or have we already decided?
I will be having a read of this today regardless I think, then will watch the movie anyway. If we choose this one then good if not then no harm anyway. If it is as good as people say it is not time wasted.
I didn't see this script on SimplyScripts. Evaluating the movie isn't really the intent of the Script Club. Does someone actually have this script? We should really restrict the choices to scripts we can get ahold of as opposed to some of the randomness being tossed around.
Have we decided anything yet? I don't believe so at this point. Ideas are being tossed, but no firm discussions to date. I'm kind of watching the discussion flow right now to see where everyone settles.
There is a link to is posted back a page or two George. I don't mind at all, I will go along with the majority vote.
I have just read The Strangers and get the feeling this might be the shortest script club yet. It was a fun read and zipped along at a healthy pace but not really sure there is an awful lot to discuss. Loads of suspense and scary moments and lots of running about it the dark with people making the usual stupid horror movie choices but totally lacking any kind of depth at all to the story or the characters. It would be interesting to see what the script club can discuss about it I guess. - I might learn something about horror writing.
I will be watching the film tonight to see if it is very different to this first draft.
It is amazing how similar it is the film 'Ils' I was talking about earler.
Bryan Michael Bertino (born 17 October 1977 in Crowley, Texas) is an American film director and screenwriter.
Bertino studied cinematography at the University of Texas at Austin. He then moved to Los Angeles, where he worked as a gaffer, and wrote screenplays in his spare time. He submitted The Strangers for a Nicholl Fellowship with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which reached the quarterfinals. However, he was able to get a meeting with Vertigo Entertainment. Bertino quit his job days before the script was sold to Universal Studios.
Mark Romanek wanted to direct The Strangers but demanded a $40 million budget. After speaking with Andrew Rona at Rogue Pictures, Bertino was asked to direct The Strangers despite a lack of directorial experience.
Amazing. The Nicholl Fellowship is a big deal, I can see how he got a meeting with a producer. What I can't tell however is how this script did so well in the Nicholl Fellowship.
I have watched the first 5 mins of the movie by the way and the set up is very different from the script's first five pages. It is an improvement and gone is that odd voice over from the Detective which makes no sense at all.
I am intrigued by this guy's success, It does make me want to discuss this script even more.
Indeed, I found the link. Thought I'd read every post, but this thread exploded rather quickly. I'm glad I started a new one.
Seriously, the guy wanted a $40 million budget? What the hell for? I have the movie sitting on my iPod to watch, but I scanned through the script and couldn't find a justification for $40 million. Star Wars was made for $11 million with all its special effects and custom scenery. Halloween (the original) was made for $320,000. This script had a house with a barn, a hotel room, a car chase, and a parking lot. What was he looking for? An all star cast, prime L.A. locations, foreign sports cars, and a nine-month shooting schedule?
Anyway, tirade aside, it appears that there is significant interest in going over this one. The only thing going on within the boards is the OWC, and we'll likely want to wait until after next Friday to discuss this one, since more than one of us are wanting to work on a script for that. After that, did anyone want to give a week to read the seven or so submissions for it, or just kick it off immediately after the OWC deadline?
Hey Slabby, by no mean i tried to offend those characters, but i think that all these sequels and prequels have killed them. I love Carpenter version, the original, so let's not talk about Rob Zombie's version.
Anyway, what's the big deal with the rent and stuff. Just go GOOGLE - Download The Stranger Torrent. (Yes its pirate but what can i do)
2WC is going well so far. Hope you guys are on your "A" Game, cause Stevie and I are comin' to PLAY!!!!!!!!! Look for a combo of Cool Hand Luke, It's a Wonderful Life, Jaws 3D, Legend of Boggy Creek, Meatballs, Mothra, and, of course...Godfather III.
Collabs are tough, especially when you’ve got an 18 hour differential in time!!!!! Should be fun to see what we come up with. Damn good thing we’ve got an extra week, cause otherwise, I think it would be near impossible for some teams. Dreamscale/Stevie TEAM is gunning for a very impressive script. USA/Australia…2009…get ready for Soylent Green REDUX!!!!!!
I'm cool with the strangers. Gonna watch the movie tonight.
Be aware that the movie differs quite a bit from the script, I might have some trouble remembering what was in each. I will have the re-read the script before we start. I will say that in my opinion the finished version is an improvement, it is 30 mins shorter and is paced better - has more structure to it than the script did.
That of course does not necessarily mean I thought it was any good. I shall not say anymore until we decide on the script and begin.
I think the discussion of the script just spurred interest in the film...
We are supposed to be discussing the script.
IMHO, the movie is alright... not great, but provides a couple of mild jumps. I would be very interested in discussing the script because it's way simple, way short and as a quarter finalist in the most prestigeous screenwriting competition, I really do think it would be a good one to study.
Whatever we choose, it can't be worse than Soylent Green.
What a stupid New Years resolution I made: Watch more movies. I should have qualified it with good movies. But how do you know until you watch?
With Soylent Green, I was thinking: No worries Shiva. You'll be just fine with any lapses in technological advancements. Soylent Green, apparently from 2022, had black spiral corded phones and video game terminals the size of a small footstool. It went clink blink like pong and had a few stars on the screen.
It's not that bad though. What did we know any different? I really loved Sol and the scene of his "going home". I love Sol!
Anyways, for future script clubs maybe consider: Tuesdays With Morrie. I haven't watched the movie or read the script, but I've read the book by Mitch Albom and I love it.
With Soylent Green, I was thinking: No worries Shiva. You'll be just fine with any lapses in technological advancements. Soylent Green, apparently from 2022, had black spiral corded phones and video game terminals the size of a small footstool. It went clink blink like pong and had a few stars on the screen.
Well, it's all really just guesswork when thinking about technology of the future. I'm still yet to see a flying car like the Jetsons had. Considering Soylent Green was made in 1973, it deserves a free pass on technology. The 2012 remake will probably be closer to what will be available in 2022.
A funny one for tech reference is War Games. When the film was made, it was top of the line technology. The computers were as big as refrigerators.
So I guess we're looking at The Strangers, since we can get the script easily enough. One topic worth covering this time once we've discussed the script is the changes made from the script to the screen, but I feel like we should try and cover the script as thoroughly as possible before in what worked and what didn't, and why this script would have been chosen as a finalist in a competition before we move on to how the movie finally turned out. This will give people time to actually watch the movie, if they are so inclined, since the transition from script to screen will provide some nice insights, but we want to keep the screen topic for last and concentrate only on the script (as much as possible) to begin with.
A time frame for starting on this would be after the writing of the 2WC, since those of us who are writing will want to keep our minds in that exercise till it's over. If there are no objections, I'll make the official "announcement" on the 19th, since the 2WC scripts are due by midnight on the 16th.
I can't say that I was impressed with the film, but that makes me even more curious as to how this script was a quarter finalist in the most prestigous screenplay competition and how come it was greenlighted.
It would be interesting to try to figure that out. If we can.
I agree with you Pia. And the funny thing is that horror, and this type of movie in particular, is my thing, but I wasn't thrilled with it at all, and I'm amazed it did so well at hte Box Office.
Yeah, Vacancy was pretty decent as well. I liked both of them much better than all teh crap we seem to get these days, but both didn't thrill me either. But for low budget flicks, neither was very low...Starngers was $10 million, and I don't see where it all went. I'm not sure about Vacancy, but I bet the budget was $7-8 million or so.
I've been lurking these script clubs since countdown because I never really had anything to say. But if you're going to review The Strangers, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed, I definitely want to try and be apart of the discussion this time.
I've been lurking these script clubs since countdown because I never really had anything to say. But if you're going to review The Strangers, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed, I definitely want to try and be apart of the discussion this time.
Cool, I would love to hear what what it is you think that made this film enjoyable.
Yeah, good call. I about replied with a clever something more about Hostel (which actually has its own thread), but we do need to consider getting back to a script to talk about. Last moment we had was doing the Strangers screenplay and kicking that off on the 19th. Any objections or other ideas.
EDIT: And I resurrected the Hostel thread from the archives of October 2007... and merged the comments from this thread to that one.
Yes, looking forward to The Strangers on the 19th as well.
PS Bert, Hostel recieved 59% acceptance rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which is very, very high for a horror movie and especially a gore soaked one such as this.
Bumping this up on purpose... Maybe some more people will be interested in participating in the SC.
Since In Bruges was suggested in this thread, I just wanted to add that I started watching it tonight. All I can say is that I'm glad we did not go with this one. I found it extremely boring. I hated all the characters and was offended by the charyctarization of the "ugly American tourist". Sure there are obese people here, but there are obese people in most western countries. Also the truly obese do not tend to travel too much.
Anyway, I know I might come across as cranky here. I'm not. Just happy we didn't chose this script. Very boring with non likeable characters... at least in the first 35 minutes.
I know where you are coming from Pia, I suggested it to some friends and they never got past 1/2 hour either, said they were very bored with it.
A very long first act concentrating on character and little plot but It is worth sticking with though, once the plot kicks in it is a wonderful film. My favorite screenplay of any film released last year, Ralph Fiennes was hilarious when he makes his appearance. To be honest I enjoyed the first act, I thought the dialogue was brilliantly written and funny with two great actors delivering it.
It really is a film not just of 3 acts but three different genres almost in each act and I think it really works. I honestly would recommend watching the rest of the film.
* If anyone does like In Bruges there is a short entitled "Six Shooter" on iTunes. This was Martin MdDonagh's first film, also starring Brendan Gleeson, it won the Oscar for best short a few years ago and is a very, very good short. Well worth a watch.
EDIT: Not on iTunes anymore, maybe need to do some googling. clip below...
I watched The Strangers last weekend. Haven't read the script yet - will do that closer to the 19th. I gotta tell you though, I didn't think the film was brilliant.
I watched The Strangers last weekend. Haven't read the script yet - will do that closer to the 19th. I gotta tell you though, I didn't think the film was brilliant.
I've had that same impression from some other "apparently" great films. Is there something that we're missing? ...
Or are they just... too literary, ...
I'd wager to guess that that's it. ...
Once a person gets their head in the clouds above the rest and if their making movies, writing books or painting pictures, there just might be that slip when the world falls into an extreme but meaningful haze that only the 'insiders" can understand.
At that point, "Who the hell wants to be an insider anyways?"
I didn't find the Strangers to be a great film either. They made a great atmosphere, but when you've seen a couple hundred horror movies, good and bad, you pray the next one doesn't have those same old cliches. I loved the setup with the unknown people terrorizing for the sake of terrorizing. That was great. I enjoyed the couple. I thought their story was decent. What killed it for me was the predictability. As soon as the friend pulled up outside, it was painfully clear what was going to happen. I full predicted the next five minutes of the movie. Come on! Surprise me already! And then suddenly, it's ok to leave their special hiding place? And then they commit the ultimate cliche. "Wait here ALL BY YOURSELF while I go get myself killed, or whatever." We already know they're in the house if they want to be, but it's completely safe. Naw, we should stay together and hope there's more safety in numbers.
All right, I wasn't going to go there before we read it, but someone else said it, and I digressed. Maybe the script is better. It was going so well, too. I had no issues with the ending. That was fine.
I've seen the great films, and they have something really good about them. There are supposedly great ones that aren't, in my opinion. There are supposedly bad ones that I have liked. Not all films are for everyone, but if you can pull one off that has some appeal or most, you've done something good.
And we're closing in on the end of the 2WC. Did we want to read what the Strangers could have been? I'm still interested, and we can totally compare it to the film when we've discussed the script. I think that will be interesting. We can decide what they SHOULD have done. Maybe learn something ourselves.
Haha, I thought the movie was an improvement on the script!
But still interested in seeing where the discussions goes, after all this thing got optioned from a first time writer and he ended up directing it too. Would be good to try and figure out why.
That's actually what interests me the most about this. If I consider the film side, the premise is very cool and very creepy. You have to love the reasoning behind it: "Why are you doing this?" "Because you were home."
Sometimes a good premise is all you need to sell a script, but I suspect we'll get into this when we start talking about it. I'm about 90% certain the premise is what sold Hostel.
"Sometimes a good premise is all you need to sell a script, but I suspect we'll get into this when we start talking about it. I'm about 90% certain the premise is what sold Hostel."
Obviously the premise is important. However, the Eli Roth had already proven that he could make money on a low budget horror film with Cabin Fever. It's all about a return on the investment. Hostel ticked all the boxes with the horror film demographic. Lots of gore, naked women. It's really as simple as that.
If you can demonstrate that you can make a professional film and approach an investor for money with a strong genre picture, you've got a good chance of getting financed. It's really as simple as that. The studios WANT to give you money to make films, that's what they do. They just want to see that you're low risk as an investment.
Many Producers don't even read scripts, it's not what they're interested in.
Many Producers don't even read scripts, it's not what they're interested in.
Now there's something interesting, and I never really considered it. You know, we concentrate a lot on writing a strong story, etc., but when you really think about the business side of it, the public doesn't read scripts either. They decide what they'll watch based on a 30 second trailer that cropped up during the commercial break of Family Guy that they decided they didn't need more cheetos during. They watched that trailer, said "that's looks aaaawwwwwesommme!" and then proceeded to watch Family Guy again.
That sort of thing is likely why the Screenwriter's Bible tells you to start brainstorming your "next great screenplay" by visualizing posters, trailers, and one liners to describe your idea before writing a single word. If you really think about it, that's how movies are usually made. Someone comes into an office, pitches the idea they scribbled down on a napkin in their pocket, and the producer loved it because it sounded like something they could sell.
This is what I've heard from "friends" even if there will be some big budget films still made, low budget scripts is no longer for just indie filmmakers. Hollywood is also looking for low budget (does not mean no budget) scripts that are good.
Anyway, does anyone still think they're going to release I Want to Fuck Your Sister any time soon?
Anyway, does anyone still think they're going to release I Want to Fuck Your Sister any time soon?
The release date is listed as sometime in 2011 on IMDb Pro.
As far as the The Strangers goes, I haven't read the script, but I thought the movie itself was just alright. Then again, I've had issues with a lot of the movies I've seen along the same lines. I liked Vacancy, Haute Tension, Wolf Creek and Rest Stop, thought Them/Ils was okay, and I didn't like Funny Games at all.
It seems like a lot of horror films are trying to go the more realistic route now, and most of them are just kind of blah. Texas Chainsaw is still at the top for me in this subgenre.
From a script/premise standpoint, premise is key, but sooner or later you're going to need a good script to back it up. It may not be the producer reading it, but when it comes time to attach actors, and even money, there has to be something there to make people want to get involved.
Well, if you have a good premise, you can tack a good script to it. It's actually harder to create a marketable logline from a good script that it is to create a good script from a marketable logline. I'm sure any of us could have taken the premise for The Strangers or Hostel and turned out a better film than ended up out there.
And seriously, Mike. Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Maybe I just set my expectations too high, but you know, if you walk into a house in Texas uninvited, you will be killed. Those people don't mess around. They might not all hang people on meathooks, but you'll at least get your head blown off if you invite yourself in and the owner doesn't know you.
And seriously, Mike. Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Maybe I just set my expectations too high, but you know, if you walk into a house in Texas uninvited, you will be killed. Those people don't mess around. They might not all hang people on meathooks, but you'll at least get your head blown off if you invite yourself in and the owner doesn't know you.
I should have mentioned that I was about 9 years old when I first saw it. As far as walking in uninvited, I agree, but it could have also gone another way ala Jeepers Creepers. Same creepy house, set back in the middle of nowhere, but instead of a family of inbred hillbilly cannibals, you've got a winged demon.
"From a script/premise standpoint, premise is key, but sooner or later you're going to need a good script to back it up. It may not be the producer reading it, but when it comes time to attach actors, and even money, there has to be something there to make people want to get involved."
Yes, you're right. I'm not suggesting the script isn't important. It's just not always the first thing on the list of priorities when it comes to funding. It's easier to get money for a solid genre horror flick, even a crappy genre horror flick, than it is to get, for instance, money for a philosophical, poetic film, even if the script is considered "great". That's a very generalised statement, each company is different and has different needs, but I'd say that was generally true.
I think I've mentioned this on here before, but I met a guy from this company in Cannes:
They distribute low budget films. They purchase them for between $30,000 to $50,000. A small amount in film terms, but not so bad if you can knock three out in a year. Make three urban thrillers for $10,000 each, you could live off that while your developing your craft.
Interestingly the sales agent said to me that their policy for purchase was essentially that it had a black lead. They make their money on DVD art. They have their films in Blockbuster and as soon as someone hires it, they've made their money. It doesn't matter if the film is crap, because the money is in the bank. They have a strong enough fan base with their urban films that people will rent them out, maybe as part of a three film deal.
Although we've all probably got loftier goals than that, I still think it's an interesting point. That for some companies the actual film/story is almost an afterthought the first priority is making sure it fits your market.
That being said. Some of these companies are going to be squeezed in the near future and the days of easy money in film are long gone. It's going to be harder than ever to break in now.
Sundance expectations tempered Sellers and buyers both have modest hopes By ANNE THOMPSON
There's a new reality at Sundance: dramatically tempered expectations. Amid a tough economy, a veritable decimation of specialty-film divisions and a run of less-than-stellar returns for last year’s crop of Sundance faves, sellers are coming in with much more modest hopes than in other recent editions. And buyers aren’t looking to disabuse them of that outlook.
"We’ve all been to ‘Happy, Texas,’ " says Focus Features CEO James Schamus of the much-hyped 1999 entry that sold for some $10 million and grossed under $2 million upon its release.
Last year’s most-ballyhooed Sundance sales found no glory at the domestic box office: Focus Features’ $10 million worldwide acquisition "Hamlet 2," Searchlights $5 million "Choke," Overture’s $3.5 million "Henry Poole Is Here," Paramount Vantage’s $1 million-$2 million "American Teen," and two Sony Pictures Classics pickups, ‘The Wackness" and ‘Baghead" (which were bought for under $1 million). Overture will finally open its $2 million ’08 pickup "Sunshine Cleaning" on March 13.
The success stories of last year’s Park City confab turned out to be docus "Man on Wire" and "Trouble the Water" (both made the early cut for Oscar’s doc competition). Micro-budget neo-realist dramas "Frozen River," starring Melissa Leo, and Lance Hammer’s "Ballast" also fared well with critics, although theatrical revenue was modest. Rookie director Hammer released "Ballast" himself, setting a new model for others unable to make the right deal.
Now, with the economy in freefall, it’s tough for filmmakers to hold onto the usual fantasies of getting scooped up by a deep-pocketed specialty distrib like Focus. While a plethora of films were made at the end of the financing bubble, only four studio distribs are still standing, plus five or so mid-size indies.
Groundswell’s Michael London has experienced the swings of the erratic indie market over the past year. Overture’s "The Visitor" was a hit, but Miramax made no money on Sundance pre-buy "Smart People."
Last year London left Sundance without having sold "Mysteries of Pittsburgh," starring Peter Saarsgard.
It took another year to make a deal with small distrib Peach Arch for a limited theatrical release.
"We made it on an outmoded business model," says London. "It’s impossible to spend money on a quality drama -- without big foreign pre-sales -- in order to sell for a profit or cover your investment at a film festival. The market is too flooded with good movies, and distributors don’t want in unless you have big stars or a marketing hook."
"Mysteries of Pittsburgh" wasn’t the only film to leave Sundance empty-handed last year. Other notables to pack up without a distrib deal in place included "What Just Happened?" and "The Great Buck Howard."
And there will be plenty more without a deal this time around. Putting distribution together can take months.
Last year, producer Lynette Howell ("Half Nelson") went into Sundance 2008 with high hopes for "Phoebe in Wonderland," which stars Elle Fanning as an imaginative girl who adores "Alice in Wonderland."
"People were still expecting the trends of the last few years of big sales," she says. "It was frightening when over the first few days nothing sold. It took a slow burn. If you need to get a $5 million sale you have to be ‘Little Miss Sunshine.’ "
When "Phoebe" didn’t land a one-stop buyer, Howell’s husband, Endeavor agent Graham Taylor, who was repping the movie, got creative. He raised $3 million by selling exclusive TV rights to Lifetime Network, non-exclusive DVD and streaming rights to Netflix’s Red Envelope, and a reduced minimum guarantee from theatrical and DVD distrib ThinkFilm.
"Our investors were able to recoup," says Howell, "and we reached a broader audience than we expected going in.’
But even last year’s flex approach is less possible this year. Since then, Lifetime has shuttered its film label, Netflix has closed Red Envelope and ThinkFilm is a trying to restore confidence under ex-New Line exec David Tuckerman, who plans to release "Wonderland" on March 6.
Fingers crossed, Howell says.
This month, Howell faces a similar challenge with competition entry "The Greatest," written by rookie helmer Shana Feste. Her screenplay about a family dealing with the loss of their son and the unexpected visit of his girlfriend arrived out of nowhere, says Howell, who lured to the film Pierce Brosnan and Susan Sarandon and vet lenser John Bailey. Howell and Endeavor easily raised $6 million from Bavarian Film Group and debt lender Oceana.
Howell did not finance against foreign pre-sell estimates, although Sidney Kimmel Intl. did sell a few foreign territories at Cannes.
"We are holding out on most of them," she says. "You get bigger numbers if you have a distributor."
But even if the movie plays like gangbusters, that does not mean Endeavor will land a distrib.
This year, people are fiscally conscious about the few movies that work, Howell says. "I’m taking it to the fest and hope it finds support and a home."
Another wrinkle in this year’s acquisitions mix: At least one major studio may not allow its specialty arm to acquire films shot under a SAG waiver while the Guild lacked a contract for seven months.
Usually, a new contract will supersede the waiver, but there’s no contract in sight, and some studios are in no mood to be helpful to SAG (though others are not concerned about this issue.) If a major’s specialty wing refuses to buy SAG waiver films, that could take the biggest potential deals off the table and cede the field to the likes of Summit and Overture, which are hungry to buy.
"I Love You Philip Morris" was completed under the old SAG agreement, but hot sale title "Brooklyn’s Finest" was not.
Having survived last year, Howell must weigh paying back her "Greatest" financier against wanting the film to play theatrically: It isn’t always the best exposure for the film. Most smaller distribs offer limited New York and L.A. releases geared toward a DVD release. And sometimes a direct TV sale is the best deal. "If it doesn’t sell at Sundance," adds Howell, "it’s not the end of the world."
London is relieved to be taking a year off from the fest.
"Sundance is a unique and wonderful way to get immersed in the real dreams coming true of indie filmmakers," he says. "But that little piece of social and creative connection, and discovering movies and filmmakers, has been overwhelmed for me by this shopping mall for movies. Maybe when I return people will go up not to buy or sell, but to watch."
And for filmmakers and would-be sellers keen to keep the old Sundance dreams alive, there’s always the remote prospect that a buyer will take to a passion project, and damn the tough times.
"I’ve lost money on movies I’ve loved and acquired and made money on movies I’ve loved and acquired," says Focus’ Schamus. "I’ll overpay this year if I feel like it."
"Now, with the economy in freefall, it’s tough for filmmakers to hold onto the usual fantasies of getting scooped up by a deep-pocketed specialty distrib like Focus. While a plethora of films were made at the end of the financing bubble, only four studio distribs are still standing, plus five or so mid-size indies."
Pretty desperate times it appears. The credit crunch has barely hit yet either. If it wasn't for the fact that the Studios are owned by huge Global Empires (Fox by News International, Sony etc) most would disappear sharpish.
It's often stated that nobody in the film industry knows anything, but reading that article is eye-opening even knowing that.
I've never even heard of Happy, Texas and the only time I've ever heard of Hamlet 2 is from sales agents talking about how much it went for. I've never seen a trailer, never heard the director talking about it, never seen an article anywhere about it.
Seems like they spent $10M on a film then forgot they needed to spend money on advertising. Surely it would make more sense to buy a film for 7M and spend 3M on advertising?
A guy called Peter Broderick has been harping on for years about how the Hollywood/Studio system is fundamentally broken. Not bad, not in need of fixing, just completely and utterly broken. I think he's right.
Interesting times. One thing I will say though, is that when a cull like this starts to happen, those that are innovative and aggressive can prosper as everyone else starts cutting back.
Makes it even harder to sell a script in these times. A script has to be really good for anyone to want to chance it by spending money on it. I know I can't write like that. On the other hand though, there seems to be a glut of pretty good movies available out there. Not long ago, everyone complained that there were no good movies at all out there.
I don't see any good movies out there! In fact, I'd say that the last 12 months or so has proven for me to be the time that I have seen the least amount of movies in the theater. Not my cup of tea being released for sure.
Saw Gran Torino Saturday. Was not impressed at all, although I didn't hate the film, either. A case of false advertising for sure, as the trailers depict Clint in 1980's Clint form, which is obvisouly not the case at all.
I'd probably say the best theatrrically released movie of 2008 (although barely released) was Rogue. It's so sad that it didn't get the release it deserved, and therefor turned out to be a giant commercial flop.
I guess I'm just pretty far from mainstream these days.
I just watched Hamlet 2 yesterday, and I enjoyed it quite a bit. The severe lack of box office doesn't really surprise me since it wasn't marketed heavily and only played on about 1500 screens for two weeks at its peak, but even then it still managed to pull in close to 5m.
This is one that's going to make a lot via rentals.
People are still getting their scripts "sold", it's just getting them financed and distributed that's becoming a real big issue.
We know these things are very cyclical, If there is one certainty about this whole mess is that things will turn around and we will be right back like we were in the mid 90's. Is it a coincidence that the great "spec bonanza" where we saw screenwriters getting money thrown at them for scripts occurred at the start of an boom that immediately followed a downturn?
I do think this could be good in the long run, clear out the dead wood, get some new faces on the scene and maybe in 2 years time anyone with a handful of decent scripts in their drawer might do very well.
Maybe being a tad optimistic but nothing lasts forever, not even recessions. And the one thing that always follows a recession is an opportunity some people to take advantage and ride the next wave.
Now there's something interesting, and I never really considered it. You know, we concentrate a lot on writing a strong story, etc., but when you really think about the business side of it, the public doesn't read scripts either. They decide what they'll watch based on a 30 second trailer that cropped up during the commercial break of Family Guy that they decided they didn't need more cheetos during. They watched that trailer, said "that's looks aaaawwwwwesommme!" and then proceeded to watch Family Guy again.
That sort of thing is likely why the Screenwriter's Bible tells you to start brainstorming your "next great screenplay" by visualizing posters, trailers, and one liners to describe your idea before writing a single word. If you really think about it, that's how movies are usually made. Someone comes into an office, pitches the idea they scribbled down on a napkin in their pocket, and the producer loved it because it sounded like something they could sell.
Great point decadence...
It really is. If we can nail down the business and marketing aspect on top of a quality script, then we can at least feel good about what we're selling.
My dad used to say that my husband could sell ice to the Eskimos. He works in computers now- not sales, but I still know that's true and if I can ever be brilliant enough to write a solid and marketable script, he'll be the one I turn to for handling the business end of things.
I've already learned a lot through the script club here about writing with a budget in mind and that's something that is pretty darn important. Especially to someone as frugal as I am. Not that one can't write the "big idea" script, but to write more with money in mind.
The real trick is to write that super-marketable script with money in mind, so that when you pitch it, the producer hears ka-ching without a lot of cash rolling out to make it. Anything that could make their money back on opening weekend would be ideal, but to do that you'd need an idea that will make that character watching his syndicated reruns sit long enough to think it's "awesome," and make that jaded producer actually pay attention cause he doesn't hear another slasher or romcom.
This is copy/pasted from MP, but I thought I'd share because I think it's good.
Allen B. Ury on surviving Great Depression II as a screenwriter.
Here are some ways we can prosper during these Hard Times:
* Think Cheap. When Steven Spielberg is having trouble financing a picture, you know times are tough. The last thing you want to do is go to a studio with a project whose budget rivals the GM bailout. Instead, think small. Clint Eastwood's current hit, Gran Torino, had a budget reportedly just south of $35 million. As of last report, it's on track to be Eastwood's greatest box office success -- ever. (Not to mention to most profitable.) The smaller the budget, the smaller the risk, and the greater the upside. That's an attractive formula when money is tight.
* Think Happy. When 15 percent of the workforce is out of a job and the other 85 percent is waiting for its pink slip, no one needs to go to the movies to be bummed out. (We can do that by looking at our 401(k)s, thank you very much.) The cure to Depression is comedy, romance, adventure and inspiration. Resurrecting Busby Berkley, Clark Gable and the Marx Brothers may still be beyond the realm of science, but a good strong dose of 21st century escapism is no doubt just the stimulus our personal economies are looking for.
* Think Genre. Genre pictures -- particularly horror, rom-coms and thrillers -- always provide the path of least resistance for writers, producers and directors looking to break into the Big Time. With financing tight and studios squeamish, these "perennials" are stronger bets than ever, especially when they feature parts that can be cast with B-list actors or even young unknowns.
* Think Boomer. Conversely, projects that appeal to Baby Boomers (45-65) are becoming increasingly attractive to producers in both film and television. Why? Because while younger audiences are dividing their leisure time between videogames, the Internet, DVDs and other personalized entertainment options, Boomers still go to the movies (and watch TV). They still do so habitually. Oh, and they have money. (Social Security is likely to stay solvent longer than Old Navy.) So don't be afraid to write about characters who actually remember Nixon. When it comes to 21st Century buying habits, 50 is the new 30.
* Think Positive. 2008 may have been a crap year for the economy, but it was an unusually strong one for Hollywood, both economically and artistically. The mega-corporations that own the major studios may find demand for their microwave ovens, hotels and golf shoes may be on the wane, but there are still plenty of customers both here and abroad eager to shell out for an evening of quality entertainment. In fact, in this era of corporate downsizing, commercial bankruptcies and massive lay-offs, Hollywood may represent your best bet for steady employment.
That's actually really good advice. Especially on the genre pictures. It's an easy beginning to a logline to start out with a genre. I do have a thing for happy endings, too. Didn't used to, but I'm getting to the point where I appreciate a warm, fuzzy ending.
The situation has got even worse since then. There's only 4 independent distribution arms of the studios still open and 5 middle sized independents. More will be falling soon.
Yeah, this is obviously an early draft, and much has changed, in terms of the actual movie.
I am very surprised that there are so many mistakes (or at least, things that I call mistakes). I am very, very interested in hearing what others have to say, and hope that everyone speaks from their hearts, and doesn't just go with teh flow, or say everythings fantastic because it's a produced script and a "hit" movie.
Pages: 
Author
Script Club Goes On
Logged
