Quoted from Murphy Funnily enough over at Script Shadows there is a review today of a spec that has just sold for $1.5m. I am linking it here because Carson Reeves does talk about what made this script stand-out, why it might get passed by certain people and why sometimes scripts do not get picked up. I thought it was an interesting review and does add somewhat to this debate. http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2010/10/snow-white-and-huntsman.html The script by the way is here, but not guaranteed to be here for long... http://www.sendspace.com/file/dt5zev

Interesting. Cheers for that.

Had a brief scan, it's basically just a direct adaptation of Snow White. He's pulled a fast one there, fair play to him.

This topic was an interesting read. I know that, for myself, I have a ways to go before I reach "pro" level. But on the flipside, it wasn't until recently that I started to take writing seriously (2005), and I'm still very young, so I'm not in a hurry. I just want to learn all that I can, and practice as much as I can, to reach my full potential. Not to be arrogant, but I do feel that I have something -- it just needs some tuning.

I feel that my skills as a writer grow tremendously within each year, with each story I write, and with each piece of advice I'm given. I do feel that I will reach "pro level" soon at the rate I am going...perhaps within the next few years. Granted, I want to do the whole-nine-yards and direct each of my stories as well, but I still want them (my stories) to be the absolute best that they can be.

I might as well use this thread for this post, it is kind of on topic...

I am a bit of a fan of Script Shadow, The blog of some guy called Carson Reeves (though it appears not to be his real name). He basically just reviews scripts (most of them unproduced but pro level), and I find him very knowledgable and he had got a great knack for it. I think he works within the industry in some capacity, it is a good site and worth checking out if you are interested, in his opinion at least, learning what makes good scripts good.

Anyway, to my point, I am also a fan of Christopher Nolan, and know I am not alone on this front. So thought I would mention that Script Shadow are having a Christopher Nolan week this week and everyday will be dissecting a Nolan film. Could be interesting, first up is The Dark Knight...

http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/

Ow, me head. Fecking cooking vodka. Gonna go and buy ten bottles of Jameson later.

What separates SS writers from the pros?

Er, they argue more?

Love and dishes,

R ox

A script is only as bad as you see it. I thought Avatar was an average script but throw on a fancy light show and there you go, money in the bank.

"its not what you know but who you know"

I think that what seperates the ss writers is they lack the conections to the big boys in order to get their script produced. Most pro's will know someone, even a friend of a friend, who'll get their script made even if it's badly written.

I'm not gonna lie. I'm a teenager. I visit this site regularly and see about script news and yesterday I registered here, so. I want to become a screenwriter and when I search here the new unproduced list the first thing I look is the title and the plot. If the plot doesn't make me read the script, it's not worth it. Second thing I look are the characters. If they are not interesting and they not grab me, I stop reading. I suppose that pro writers know how to use characters and create interesting headlines and plots.
This is my opinion.

What separates SS writers from the pros?

Is it mountains of cash?

Quote=VS]I'm not gonna lie. I'm a teenager.[/quote]

Oooh, I wouldn't wanna be a teenager again. It's bad enough being an adult. What you say sounds fair enough.

And you're right.

If you wanna be a screenwriter you're in the right place. Just bear in mind some people, like me and Jwent tend to be drunk on here. Such is life. Don't believe all the hype. Good start, fella. Bulgaria is an ace place. I'm going back there one day.

Keep it cooking.

R xo

Quoted from Murphy Funnily enough over at Script Shadows there is a review today of a spec that has just sold for $1.5m. I am linking it here because Carson Reeves does talk about what made this script stand-out, why it might get passed by certain people and why sometimes scripts do not get picked up. I thought it was an interesting review and does add somewhat to this debate. http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2010/10/snow-white-and-huntsman.html The script by the way is here, but not guaranteed to be here for long... http://www.sendspace.com/file/dt5zev

Hey Murph, thanks for posting this link.
I'm a little late to the party, but I read the script today.
I'm much more impressed with the structure than the story here.
The writer clearly took the time to build arcs for his main characters.
There's nothing remarkable here, but it all works together.
It has that confident flow that I think many amateur scripts lack.

I found it fascinating to see the write punctuate his beat with underlining.
He practically spells it all out for the reader, you can practically hear the music swells.
I guess that's part of his way of standing out from the herd? Thoughts?
Perhaps finding an engaging way of holding the reader's hand helps?
At times, it was cloistering for me, but others may enjoy that kind of telegraphing.

I feel the story suffers from trying to please every marketing quadrant, sans toddlers.
For me, that tone rarely pleases, but it does intensify marketability.
And in this case, it worked, so good on him.
Anyone else here have thoughts on the writer's style?

Regards,
E.D.

Whoa, whoa. I decided to visit Simply Scripts for the first time in close to a year, and I find this thread about something I've been wondering about for years. And now feel closer to answering.

(Also, hi everyone that remembers me!)

A quick recap: I've in the last two years been working with a director and had two funded shorts produced (€10,000 and €25,000 budgets respectively) one of which has played festivals worldwide (Tribeca, Newport Beach, Rushes Soho, Edinburgh, Galway etc.) while the other is in post as we speak. I have met and talked to a lot of other people in the industry (directors, producers, screenwriters), and read a lot of scripts, and as a result grown immensely as a writer.

So I thought I'd share some of the things I've learned, and which to me, have proven extremely helpful.

Now, I'm not a pro (yet). I don't make money off screenwriting. But I am in a place where it's looking like screenwriting is gonna be something I'm gonna do full-time and as a carreer. So I need to write pro-scripts.

And looking back at my own work that I wrote while at SS and what I'm writing now, I know one thing for sure. What separates amateur and pro-scripts isn't just luck. It's not just connections. It's understanding how to tell a story. An interesting story.

What Murphy said in this thread is quite true. 99% of characters in amateur scripts fail to be interesting or feel like real people. When you read the dialogue you don't feel like you're listening to an actual person speak. You're listening to the writer put words in the mouth of his character. For whatever reason. Maybe the plot needs it. Maybe there's a joke you wanna tell (but would the character?) etc.

But it's more than that. The epiphany for me was STRUCTURE. I'm not just talking about hitting the right plot-points. Most of us have had the three act structure beaten into our brains with a wooden bat. The revelation for me was how integral character is to structure.

Because structure is nothing without two things: Character Arcs and Theme.

You cannot write a good script without a theme. A script without a theme, and a pervasive, strong theme at that, is like a person without a soul or personality.

Before you start writing you need to know what your theme is, and you need to know how your character arc is gonna carry that theme.

Lemme give an example:

One of the movies I enjoyed most last year was Zombieland. Zombieland is a movie about taking chances. It's a movie about how some things are worth playing fast and loose for. In other words: it's a movie about conquering your fears.

So how does the movie put this, on its own, pretty bland theme to work?

Meet Columbus. A kid with so many fears that he could hardly function before the world ended. He's not just skittish. He's phobic. What's he afraid of? Well most things. as the VO tells us early on page 6:

Quoted Text COLUMBUS ...I'm considering opening that bathroom door. Notice what a huge wuss I am. Seriously I don't have the guts God gave one of those trembly toy poodles, the kind that pees on eye contact. But I've survived so far 'cause I play it safe. Always by the rules. MY rules. As Columbus navigates his way through the following action scene, he follows ALL FOUR RULES. And what he just said is the truth...we aren't watching a hero here... ...we're watching a COWARD.

Hello theme. Hello character who embodies the theme. Hello character arc.

So what we know through, not only the VO, but from the opening scene of Columbus' insistence on following rules is the following:

Columbus is a coward who has survived thus far BECAUSE he's a coward.

However, we also notice he's ALONE.

What happens in the movie of course is that Columbus meets other people, including a girl he falls in love with. Suddenly his rules are challenged. Is it better to play it safe and be a coward, if it means always being alone?

Columbus' character arc is then: "Columbus learns to overcome his fears and realize that some things are worth breaking the rules for. Even if it could get you killed."

Notice how that arc is intrinsically tied in with the theme. But not only that, it takes one of his specific fears, GIRLS, and makes that the stake. Columbus isn't just overcoming his fears because it's gonna make him a better person, he's doing it because it's gonna get him the girl.

That's a stake the audience will get behind and cheer for. And the reason it works is because it's connected at the hip to the theme and his arc.

That kind of synergy is essential in a Hollywood script.

Now of course this alone doesn't make a script up to snuff. You need to be able to write interesting character who can embody your theme. I'm not sure if this can be taught unfortunately. It can be honed, but I think it's a matter of "either you have it or you don't."

There's a lot more that separates the pros from the amateurs of course, but I will say that if you go on Script Shadow and you read any one of the top 25 scripts, and you can't tell the difference between that and the VAST majority of scripts on this site and others, I think you're kidding yourself.

At least that's what I've come to believe.

If anyone is interested in how you write good characters and good dialogue that's not flashy and trying too hard, check out THE F WORD: http://www.mediafire.com/?qn1wiy2zjml

It's a Canadian indie script (being produced with Casey Affleck and Mary Elizabeth Winstead though...) and as such does not work with the same broad brushstrokes as something like Zombieland, but it works because of it's central two characters are SO well-written and interesting. They are REAL. We care about them, and we care about whether or not they end up together.

Another script I would recommend for dialogue, (but for different reasons) would be 30 Minutes Or Less, which is incidentally being directed by Reuben Fleischer who did Zombieland: http://scriptshadow.blogspot.com/2009/12/30-minutes-or-less.html


Okay, hope any of this is useful to anyone. I have to get back to my exams now.

Great discussion!

Quoted from Grandma Bear Anyway, this was a great post and I agree 100%. We may not always be able to tell a pro script from an amateur one by reading one page, but it definitely shows when you read the whole script.

Or see the whole movie, right?

WRONG!!!!!!

The vast majority of "Pro Scripts" that get turned into movies, are piss poor, Everyone thinks characters have to be this, story has to be that, and the theme has to be whatever.

INCORRECT!!!!!!

Zombieland was awful...just terrible.  The whole thing was a frickin' joke, and IMO, there's absolutely no way anyone can or should point to these cartoon characters and try to make a point about anything.

Oh, welcome back Death Monkey!

Zombieland rocked!

You suck!


Phil (End of discussion)

Quoted from Dreamscale The vast majority of "Pro Scripts" the get turned into movies, are piss poor...

The "vast majority"?  This just isn't true, Jeff.  How can you even say that?

I can easily say that the vast majority of movies are not good...at all.

You can blame that on Producers, Directors, stars, or whatever, but most of the time, it comes down to the source material, which is the "Pro Script".

Zombieland was in the right place at the right time, and it benefited greatly from fantastic marketing and a well thought out cast.

Quoted from Dreamscale Or see the whole movie, right? WRONG!!!!!! The vast majority of "Pro Scripts" that get turned into movies, are piss poor, Everyone thinks characters have to be this, story has to be that, and the theme has to be whatever. INCORRECT!!!!!! Zombieland was awful...just terrible.  The whole thing was a frickin' joke, and IMO, there's absolutely no way anyone can or should point to these cartoon characters and try to make a point about anything. Oh, welcome back Death Monkey!

Well look, to a certain extent things are a matter of taste. I recognize that. If you didn't like Zombieland, that's perfectly fine.

But what is indisputable is the fact that it's a movie that has crafted its theme, character arcs and plot in way that compliments each other to form a WHOLE. That means when the movie is over you know what it was about. You know what the hero wants, what stands in his way (internally and externally) and what's at stake if he fails.

And that' one of the things that separates the pros from the amateurs.

The movie was pretty much universally lauded, both critically and box-office wise, and I think it's one of the best examples out there of a well-written Hollywood entertainment in the last few years. So it certainly works for most people.

I think the problem many screenwriters have is that they think that the only thing that separates them from the big league is a matter of luck. Well you know, if your script is as good as the pros, stick in a a few major competition and it's gonna win. If the script is good enough, it will get noticed.

If it doesn't get noticed, maybe there's a reason for it.

Then again maybe your idea of quality writing is just categorically different from anyone in the industry. I'm sure that's a possibility. There are other opinions available out there. If for instance you're into art movies, you will find that you don't need to worry about any of what I just said.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Welcome back and congrats on on The Pool! As usual your comments are very good, informative, intelligent and so on. There are a few people like that here...I'm not one of them.   Anyway, this was a great post and I agree 100%. We may not always be able to tell a pro script from an amateur one by reading one page, but it definitely shows when you read the whole script. Welcome back and hope you stick around. Pia

Thanks a lot, Pia

I'm not sure I am back. I try to stay away from message boards as I've found I easily get addicted to, and drawn into discussions, so I've gone cold turkey for the past year from all message boards. But I just had an urge to check out the old board and see what was happening...

And this is a great topic for discussion. Because if your attitude is that there is no difference between the amateurs and the pros, then that kind of exonerates you and puts the blame on "the crooked, nepotistic, stupid, greedy" industry, you know? It's not that YOU'RE a bad writer. It's that THEY don't know what good writing is!

I recently watched BEST WORST MOVIE about TROLL 2 and was shocked to see that so many people involved in it on the production side, actually thought they had made a great movie. The director, the screenwriter, some of the actors.

Delusion is a dangerous thing. And it's rampant in this industry. And you will never succeed if you can't look at your own work without bias. Be your own toughest critic.