Anyone read this before? Thoughts?

http://www.scriptmag.com/features/magic-bullet-two-big-secrets-to-screenwriting-success

And there was me thinking there was no such thing as magic bullet!

Now that I think about it, isn't a Magic Bullet a femnine pleasure toy? You know, for when a man is not available? ;)

LOL

I like this site, thanks for the link. Killing on Carnival Row is one of my favorites.

Read some other articles on this site and came across this paragraph:

If your script is lucky enough to land in an agent's (or producer's) take home pile, and you're just another random writer, you've got about 5 pages to prove you can actually write.  And for an unknown, that means they want a quick read. If you can deliver that, even if other aspects are less than stellar, you will have a huge leg up on the competition.

He writes 5 pages but the first page can tell a whole lot about what you're in for. 5 pages will seal the deal to keep reading or toss it. This is why I get so picky on word choice and how a sentence is written among other things. One trip up and chances are your script goes to the circular file.

Thanks for the link Tony.

To me - the article didn't really strike a note - at least not in the - "oh, now I get it" way. He basically says:

* Nothing's original - so, take an existing theme or story and hang enough ornaments on it that is has the appearance of being original.

* Keep the plot simple. Complicate everything else.

I haven't sold a thing, so my opinion here my be unwarranted. But in my view the steps are:

1. Have a great title.

2. Have a killer log line.

3. Have a compelling - riveting - I want to read more - first five pages (some would even argue one page).

If you don't pass step 1 - the reader ain't going to step 2. You fail there, step 3 is moot.

No of the above has anything to do IMO in whether a script is piss poor or outstanding. But if we are talking about spec writers - they are critical to success. At a minimum, doing poor on one of them can ensure failure.

Quoted from eldave1 To me - the article didn't really strike a note - at least not in the - "oh, now I get it" way. He basically says: * Nothing's original - so, take an existing theme or story and hang enough ornaments on it that is has the appearance of being original. * Keep the plot simple. Complicate everything else. I haven't sold a thing, so my opinion here my be unwarranted. But in my view the steps are: 1. Have a great title. 2. Have a killer log line. 3. Have a compelling - riveting - I want to read more - first five pages (some would even argue one page). If you don't pass step 1 - the reader ain't going to step 2. You fail there, step 3 is moot. No of the above has anything to do IMO in whether a script is piss poor or outstanding. But if we are talking about spec writers - they are critical to success. At a minimum, doing poor on one of them can ensure failure.

I agree with Dave 100% on all accounts...but...I really don't think anyone should shoehorn anything in the first few pages just to "grab attention".

What you're missing the point of -- all of these steps together are the reason why scripts fail. Not important which more than the other, just all.

But the point I took is, a guy gets home from work, pours a glass of milk, opens a box of cookies...

hmmm... which script should I read? opens 1

2

3

4

first three pages don;t excite him on any of em...

I'll watch tv.

Does it matter who the guy is after that?

Quoted from Dreamscale I agree with Dave 100% on all accounts...but...I really don't think anyone should shoehorn anything in the first few pages just to "grab attention".

What do you mean by: "shoehorn?"

Quoted from TonyDionisio What do you mean by: "shoehorn?"

I mean that, yeah, it's important to jump out of the gate with something interesting, entertaining, exciting, horrific, unique, etc, but it has to make sense, has to be organic, has to have a real reason why you're starting where you are, etc.

So many scripts and movies fail miserably in this regard, IMO.  It's as if someone told them to spice up their beginning, so they go balls out, almost trying to deceive the reader/viewer into believing their script/movie is something it's never going to be.

You can tell an awful lot about a script within the first page/pages.  But understand that alot of that is about the writer and his/her abilities.

Don't give up on a good writer, because in theory, they know what they're doing and they're doing it for a reason.  On the flip side, when I come across a piss poor opening from a writer I can easily tell does not know what they're doing, I'll bail quickly, even if it's an intense opening, because I know, down the road, it';s gong to derail quickly.

I get what you're saying. Makes sense to have things 'make sense' and not be phony.

But let's face it, this is screenwriting, not a novel. You make interesting characters and drop them into the mix. People watch, think along, put themselves in the characters shoes... etc.

If a guy sits down to wach an action movie, there needs to be some action in the beginning. The entire bond franchise began with an action scene that pretty much had nothing to do with the rest of the story or was shoehorned.

Thriller? Better have something to be weary of in the opening scene.

Horror? Could open up with someone getting killed who has nothing to do with the story. The audience was just 'horrified.' Score.

Comedy? I better be laughing within five minutes.

Quoted from TonyDionisio I get what you're saying. Makes sense to have things 'make sense' and not be phony. But let's face it, this is screenwriting, not a novel. You make interesting characters and drop them into the mix. People watch, think along, put themselves in the characters shoes... etc. If a guy sits down to wach an action movie, there needs to be some action in the beginning. The entire bond franchise began with an action scene that pretty much had nothing to do with the rest of the story or was shoehorned. Thriller? Better have something to be weary of in the opening scene. Horror? Could open up with someone getting killed who has nothing to do with the story. The audience was just 'horrified.' Score. Comedy? I better be laughing within five minutes.

Apologies in advance for the length - I'm just in the mood for diatribe today (or - more to the truth - I'm sick and  tired of working on my own stuff:)

I think both you and Jeff are correct - just in different lanes to some extent. Jeff speaks to what makes a good script and you speak more to what makes a script sell-able.

For the most part - some secretary,  assistants, or intern is going to be the first point of judgement on your script. Some of those will have no clue on the differences between a good script or a bad script. However, all of them will have a large stack of scripts to get through and they are going to go through a triage process to determine what goes in the trash bin and what moves on. Title, log line and first five pages will be critical. And after that,  they are not  necessarily going to to use a filter of bad script - good script Instead, it will be will my boss think this is something that we can make money with.

Now, I do not believe that you can tell if a script is actually going to be good or bad based on the first five pages. However, I absolutely agree that you can tell whether it has a good chance of moving on at an agency level based on the title, log line, first five pages. e.g., If there is a typo in your first scene heading - you are dead, etc.

I kind of disagree with Jeff on the shoehorn issue in terms of selling a script.  I know what he is saying, but I think sometimes an artificial device is needed to keep the script out of the intern's circular file. For example, you may have a feature where the story is linear and your most compelling scene is on page 60. It may be perfectly organic to have that scene exactly where it is. But - it may keep the script out of the round file if you move that scene up as a flashback to Scene number 1.  Long winded way of saying a perfect script may have a better chance of being sold by making it an imperfect one.

Tony - your Bond film example is a good one. The action scenes are tedious, add nothing to the story and yet are probably needed if a spec writer is going to sell a Bond movie. If not, you know some executive fuk with a cigar in his mouth is going to say - "I don't get it - where's the car chase on page 3?" A great Bond movie might be one that opens with him dealing with some emotional issue or a mental breakdown - but it ain't ever going to happen because the action is going to be "shoehorned" in.

But what really makes my blood pressure rise is the "Magic Bullet" type of articles that purport to have some secret formula on screenwriting success (i.e., when success is defined is selling). This one in particular had some interesting tips, but, like many of the others offers nothing that really moves the script from the intern to the Agency head. I mean - one of it's premises is that no script is really original. Hmmm - no kidding - maybe that is why for the last 50 years every script is pitched as a comparison to another story. (e.g., a drag racing team tours the country killing the living dead - think The Fast and the Furious meets Dawn of the Dead. etc.) And I am not picking on this particular author - I have the same reaction to Synder, Reeves, and the whole host of gurus who have head little success in actually writing and selling quality scripts. Sure, they have interesting things to say from time to time, but at the end of the day they are no different then the guy who wants to sell you the hot stock tips - i.e., if they were really all that great - he would be buying the stock, not selling the tips to you.

We all know that an absolute ton of shitty scripts get made  and an equivalent pile of quality ones never see the light of day. It is not hard to conclude that script quality (however defined) is NOT the metric for success in terms of selling a script. It is merely coincidental.  So, to the three items mentioned before - I would add a fourth - write something that is marketable.

Okay - done with my coffee now. Time to get productive again.............

I seem to have a way of not saying exactly what I mean, which usually comes down to the word choice I use.

In this case, "shoehorn", probably was a mistake.

My intent was merely to say that a good writer shouldn't need a magic bullet or the like to know how to start off his or her script....and if they do, they'd be "shoehorning" in something because they think they have to.

Maybe that still doesn't make much sense, but hopefully you guys have a clue what I'm trying to say.

Enjoy the weekend!

I get it.