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.
Hey Kevin I want to compete with you on those stakes. Bet I've broken more rules than you have!
But you know what, whilst I am new, I still think it is harder to differentiate what is great than what is amateur. Let me explain.
I don't want to revisit any old SS thread about the difference between amateur and pro scripts but to me it seems easy to spot a very poor script, then an average script, then a standard pro script... but what is it about the top end scripts. You know the ones that broke through, didn't deserve to be there, had no contacts etc ( note I have no experience on these matters so please feel free to correct me).
Ok, Ok, I do get the picture about contacts, studios etc etc,but let's for a minute drop the defensive line and think what sets a page on fire, versus being great.
Of course I bow at at this point trying to appear wise, yet having no idea of the answer, but let's hope more on SS manage to find that magic spark.
I would say at this point Kevin, your wise observations and reflections of what works, what doesn't, and how you are building your understanding of how to structure a story are useful to us all - well definitely me.
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
If you got the time, about a year ago I spent quite some time digging through "spec" screenplays (found out most of these folks had inside connections [Hint! Hint! This is largely a collaborative industry]), and eventually uncovered a great deal of insight as to what constitutes a good amateur or pro spec screenplay.
Well, Reef, take whatever insights I share with a strong word of caution, and it is this: I seem to change my mind every month, so beware!
My current approach can be summed up with 3 letters: TTP
Turn the page.
STC(save the cat) is fine. Nothing wrong with it. But don't let it make you lose focus on what's important. Imagine you are telling a ghost story around a camp fire. As soon as you see someone yawn, or their eyes drift away, you know you're losing your audience. And you respond by adjusting your story quickly, inserting a real attention grabber.
And it's the same thing with a book. A good book you have trouble putting down. At the end of each page, you want to turn to the next one. TTP.
Why would a movie be different? Even more relevant, why would a spec script be any different? The object of a spec script should, before anything else, be this: make the reader keep reading. If you need unfilmables to do that, use 'em. If you need to break 3 act structure, do it.
To me, it's not 3 acts that's most important. It's these three things: 1) have a premise, log, and/or title that draws interest; 2) keep the reader turning the page til the end; and 3) make the end something memorable, either a powerful last image, or something emotionally satisfying.
That said , structure still is important and helpful, and things like Carson Reeve's GSU. But for me, it's TTP.
Buy hey, it still hasn't been a year since I first started writing, so I'll probably say this is all wrong in a month!
Be careful when you use acronyms. TTP is also short for Temporary Toilet Paper. (It seriously is. Google it.) I don't think you want anybody referring to your pages as TTP.
P.S. - Don't really google it. I was just making a funny. I think it actually has to do with blood clots or something like that. My stepdad had it.
Well, Reef, take whatever insights I share with a strong word of caution, and it is this: I seem to change my mind every month, so beware!
My current approach can be summed up with 3 letters: TTP
Turn the page.
STC(save the cat) is fine. Nothing wrong with it. But don't let it make you lose focus on what's important. Imagine you are telling a ghost story around a camp fire. As soon as you see someone yawn, or their eyes drift away, you know you're losing your audience. And you respond by adjusting your story quickly, inserting a real attention grabber.
And it's the same thing with a book. A good book you have trouble putting down. At the end of each page, you want to turn to the next one. TTP.
Why would a movie be different? Even more relevant, why would a spec script be any different? The object of a spec script should, before anything else, be this: make the reader keep reading. If you need unfilmables to do that, use 'em. If you need to break 3 act structure, do it.
To me, it's not 3 acts that's most important. It's these three things: 1) have a premise, log, and/or title that draws interest; 2) keep the reader turning the page til the end; and 3) make the end something memorable, either a powerful last image, or something emotionally satisfying.
That said , structure still is important and helpful, and things like Carson Reeve's GSU. But for me, it's TTP.
Buy hey, it still hasn't been a year since I first started writing, so I'll probably say this is all wrong in a month!
Good post Kev, and I concur with everything you say.
The nature of the way scripts enter the system means that scripts have to be very enjoyable to read. The readers are the first Gatekeepers of quality. They have a somewhat boring job and fast paced, interesting reads are more likely to get a consider or recommend than more technical or slower paced scripts.
Story and characters have always been the most important aspect of scripts, but now it's even more important that your script reads as well as a short story or a novella. It should encourage you to read all the way to the end.
There is of course a debate about whether this is a good thing (does a script that's fun to READ actually make an interesting FILM)...but that's another debate...albeit one I'm willing to get into.
I have been thinking for a while about this very question, Rick. And I think the answer is that you have to be willing to sacrifice certain things in order to give your script a chance. A script that's too complicated or too subtle is less likely to get picked up. If one can get to a point that they're established, then they have the opportunity to discuss their ideas with people that matter. The more you can do that, the more room there is to do this stuff. But before you're established, the script should read fast and easy.
This is a huge problem for me personally. My scripts don't read that way, and I have a tendency to insert things into my stories that are hard to pick up on a fast read. I think it's something I really have to learn to avoid.
I would imagine that if I have a pile of scripts on my desk that I have to get to, even though I'm looking for that diamond in the rough, I'm also looking for an excuse to be done with any given script. So every page has to do something to keep the reader interested.
Carson Reeves emphasizes GSU(goals stakes urgency). I find that helpful, and I've added my own: Q. It's an old and silly little trick, but I think it works. I am trying to leave a trail of questions and mysteries in my stories that the reader needs answered before he can put it down. What's in the mysterious box, who is that masked man, what's behind the locked door. Things like that. My hope is that by including a series of those, eventually I lead the poor reader all the way to Fade Out. If I can do that, I've won a part of the battle.
The problem writers have is that it's almost impossible to sell screenplays to major companies.
That's the way it appears to me anyway. Someone posted a link on here not too long ago saying there were only something like 29 spec sales last year to big studioes.
Ultimately...more people win the lottery each year...a lot more actually. There's three or four winners a week in the UK because you have the Euro Millions as well.
So how far does sacrificing parts of your story actually serve your career?
On the other hand...we're seeing the likes of Phil, AJR, Pia etc moving into making their own stuff, or being the main fulcrum behind the making of their own stuff.
Anyone can make their own film these days...and once it's made maybe someone will see it or even buy it....and all these rules that everyone forces themselves to follow don't really matter in those circumstances.
I suppose my point is that it's all about who you are targetting and what your intention is for your writing.
I read an article last week, I'll look for the link for you, which breaks things down a lot more optimistically, Rick. For writers. Combined with other things I have been discovering, I think the odds are MUCH better than the lottery. Let me explain what I've learned.
First, yes, the odds of getting your spec script produced by a major studio, as an unknown writer, are like hitting the lottery. Worse. But like I said, it's not all bad news.
The way it seems to work is this: if you write a spec script that really leaves a good impression, it really can open doors, even if it never gets produced. The studios really are looking hard for writers and other creative people. If you can get a script discovered, it opens doors. Studios want to meet with you, discuss what else you have. If it looks like you have several good ideas, like you have an understanding of what a marketable script is, and the ability to create one, you have a good chance of getting hired for other projects. Often a studio or director has a project in mind, they just need people to develop it.
The article I read had a breakdown. I think there are about 4400 writers working full time for studios. So that's the job pool. What are the odds of breaking into that? Well, the article looked at the number of scripts that are graded 'consider' or 'recommend' and calculated that there are only about 8500 or so writers out there who can write a script that can achieve that. So roughly half of them are already working.
In other words if you are capable of writing a script that a studio would rate as 'consider' or higher, the odds are about 50/50 you can get work as a writer.
Is this is good as selling your script for big bucks and seeing it produced? No, but work in the field is good in itself, but it also means you are developing the relationships you need to make your ideas have a chance at development.
I can't verify any of this. I have no direct experience of it, obviously. But I do sense there is a hunt for talent. So while getting a spec script sold and produced is a long shot, having a really good spec script open doors for you into the industry seems much more optimistic.
So to answer your question, I do think making your scripts easy to digest is worth it. Make them easy to read, enjoyable to read. Don't make them a blueprint, make them a story the reader can't put down. Find ways to add depth to the story that don't make it work to read.
I can say that's what we need to do. Doesn't mean I can do it!
I totally agree with you that if you want to work in the Hollywood system (and of course sell a script), then that way of writing is the best way to go...I also think it's best to combine it with Hollywood style films...comedies, rom coms, heist stories etc. The fresh twist on solid genres approach.
I suppose from my point of view, it just seems a little futile. I think it was Brett who laughed the other day at the fact the guy who wrote Arlington Road was working on Transformers. Seems you have to really refine your writing talent to a ridiculous degree, just to write scripts that are essentially:
Robot attacks, gets blown up.
Robot attacks, gets blown up.
Copy and Paste for twenty pages (which was all that happened for twenty minutes in Transformers 2!).
It seems like spending years mastering quantum mechanics to get a job sweeping the floor in a lab.
I don't think there is a single regular on here that isn't writing to a producable standard. There are films out there that are turning a profit that really are not good at all.
I just wonder whether writers are making things too hard for themselves by chasing the Hollywood dream/style, when they could be making decent stuff with local teams and getting it out there.
Just a couple of examples of the thinsg i'm talking about:
This was an independent film that sold over a million copies and has a distribution deal with Dimension Extreme. It's appalling. Basically an extreme low budget version of 28 days later shot in ultra crap Blair Witch style.
This is a film my friend is in (Rob Ireland). It's again ultra low budget (1 crew member...the Director...who is also a character in the film)...but has distribution with Warner Bros in the US. The Director is in talks with Lionsgate about a properly funded film.