Message Board

You're not asking for a remake of "Apocalypse Now." You're asking for another adaptation of "Heart of Darkness," only you want it set in the Middle East.

If you're truly passionate about this project, my advice would be for you to write your adaptation of "Heart of Darkness." If it turns out to be an awesome script, then you stand a chance of getting directors and actors excited about being a part of it.

Right now, you're just pitching a remake with a twist. And Hollywood is so overrun with pitches (especially pitches of remakes) that your letters will never even get read, let alone considered.

But if you write a great script with your idea you'll at least be ahead of the thousands of people who have a "great" idea for a movie, but never got anywhere with it.

I'll give you my first gut reaction to the logline: Seen it. Many times.

Sorry if that's harsh, but your logline doesn't convey any new twist to a standard storyline. What creative element makes your script stand out?

Many movies use the plot of- 1. Character doesn't like life 2. Somehow character gets what he wants most 3. Character realizes things were better before

There's also the tale of the monkey's paw (which was later used by Simpsons, if not other shows). You wish for anything on a mystical monkey's paw and it comes true, but always with unexpected, sinister consequences (a woman wishes for money and so her son dies at work and the company gives them a cash settlement; she wishes for her son back and his decayed corpse rises from the grave; etc).

So, your logline needs to tell the reader how you've built upon this idea. Hope this helps.

(by the way, I always love Monkey's Paw- type stories, so keep at it and make it good)

Upon reading your logline again, I realized that the Monkey's Paw story might be something completely different than your script.

In that case, you definitely need to clarify that in your logline. You don't want a reader making the mistake (or perhaps I didn't make a mistake) I did.

What's missing is a hook. To sum up your logline, "Person A moves to Place X and has problems with Person B." So, from the logline, there's no new perspective or twist on the plot.

A good logline should ignite certain questions in the reader: What happens next? How will the writer pull this off? (if the logline has a real twist to it) How can I market this idea?

A poor logline will makes the reader ask these questions: Why do I care? Haven't I seen this before?

Unfortunately, your logline leans towards the latter set of questions.

So, I say get your hook into the logline. Make the twist apparent. Like Santa's, "... only now he's wearing the skirt." Although I misinterpreted it to think he had turned into a woman, it definitely grabbed my attention.

You know, we sit around for hours trying to think of good titles. Poetic titles. Puns in titles. Famous expressions with one word changed titles.

But this might be the GREATEST title ever. I'm hard pressed to think of another four word title that truly captures what a movie is about.

"It's about snakes. On a plane."

Oh, I completely agree that this is one of the most comedic titles I've ever heard. And it's so dumbed down that I can't believe the studio still ran with it.

But, as I said before, when you go see "Snakes on a Plane," you know exactly what kind of movie you're walking into. Don't expect characters. Don't expect deep messages and themes. Don't expect an ironic deconstruction of society. Just expect snakes. On a plane.

I love the fact that someone actually had the guts to stick with it.

How often can the title, logline, and synopsis all be rolled into four words?

Can you imagine the pitch?

Writer: It's about snakes. On a plane. Producer: Hmmm... Anything else? Writer: Did I mention that there are snakes? And they're on a plane. Producer: Hmmm... Now what if you changed it so that it takes place on a plane? And then you put snakes on it! Writer: What a great idea!

Sorry, but I find the existence of a movie titled "Snakes on a Plane" completely hilarious. I'm almost tempted to see it. Almost.

Anyone else notice that you have to press "Enter" twice to create a new line?

You'll all have to mentally format my back and forth between the writer and producer.

Now back to work on my sure-fire script: RATS IN MY CAR

Yeah, you're walking on thin ice when you base a comedy on Jesus (or any other major religious figure).

But perhaps you can pull back and reinvent your idea so it doesn't attack Christians in particular.

The concept of three friends making a movie as a way to scam money from organized religion is intriguing. And it might be possible to walk that line between edgy and offensive. Once you specifically throw Jesus in the mix, you're asking for trouble.

My advice to you is to figure out what message you want your script to convey. Are you writing about what you feel is hypocrisy in the church? The economics of religion? The violence between religions that preach love? What?

Then write a script around a theme and message that you personally believe in. The humor will often flow naturally from there and it stands a better chance of being witty instead of crude..

It might flop. It might offend. Who knows? But if you write something you believe in, it becomes a piece of personal expression instead of just offensive drivel.

But don't poke fun at religious figures just because you think it gives your script an edge.

Just so you know, television shows have used a similar concept (one of the early episodes of the Simpsons has Homer starting his own religion).

The general format being:

A man is dissatisfied with his religion. He decides to start his own religion by his own rules. He loves it and people decide to join. Afterall, it's the easiest religion ever. Then, as their hedonism takes full bloom, God (or a set of deus ex machina events) exerts His power and puts them back in their place. Their characters have arched, lessons learned.

So, you might need to further twist the idea to make it more your own.

I don't like writing volumes of character psychological and physical profiles before I begin. I find, as a writer, it backs me into a corner. Then I start questioning my characters as the script progresses. "Would he really do this? Or wouldn't this be more in line with his character? Oh, he'd NEVER say that."

And then everything slows down and results in a pile of sterile crap (and it takes work to make crap sterile).

One of the greatest moments a writer can have is when their characters write the story. I love it when a character surprises me.

So, in general, I first think of the bare essense of a character. Someone who, in reality, is just a walking talking piece of cardboard. But as the rough draft commences, the character begins to show signs of flesh on that cardboard. By the end of the first draft, there's something there that I can really build on (hopefully).

It's then that I might crack one of the screenwriting books and give my character "The Quiz." "What's your shoe size? What's your worst memory? What was your first day of school like?"

But hey, everyone's technique is different. Whatever works.

It goes without saying that, as writers, we need to use backstory carefully and not forcefeed it into the script. We all know that our craft is one of subtleties. But how many war movies have you seen where the soldier pulls out the picture of his girlfriend to look at before he's shot? Of the cop who's "One week away from retiring, buying my boat, and going on a second honeymoon with my wife".

So be careful to not have backstory for the sake of backstory. Some little speech about your character's relationship with his grandfather will not necessarily make him "deeper." Backstory should be a tool to get at the essense of a character.

A wonderful example of spoken backstory is in Jaws. Quint has his famous speech about being attacked by sharks after the Indianapolis sank. Hooper, from a rich family, had his boat eaten by a shark when he was a kid. Brody was a cop in New York, but felt he wasn't making a difference so he moved to Amity Island. Now, if he wants to make a difference, he needs to confront one of his greatest fears.

Jaws is a character script combining with a plot driven script.

Terry,

Sorry if you thought I was responding to you directly. My comments were meant in a more general way.

And I completely agree with what you said about putting the backstory in early drafts. If it works, great. If not, farewell.

I can watch the second half of Jaws (all three characters stuck together on a boat) over and over. It's great! I hear that Robert Shaw also had a hand in writing the Indianapolis speech. I also hear that he was actually drunk when he delivered it.

It's a great movie. But I can't stand when people automatically dismiss it because "the shark looks fake."

Well, since this is supposedly a screenwriting contest discussion forum, I thought I'd actually start a thread about contests.

Most of the biggies have either wrapped up or have moved into the final stages.

Any successes out there? Come on, it's your chance to brag.

I'm happy (but not content) with my quarterfinal placement in Nicholl.

Well, I've read the articles, rented the books, and searched this bulletin board for answers about query letters. And all the answers are different.

But after failing in my last query letter binge, I'm trying again (this time with a script that's actually marketable). Anyway, I was hoping to gain some insight from people who have worked in procos or agencies. Also, if anyone has been successful with the process, please share your secrets.

So, here are the questions:

1. Snail mail or email? (some will only accept one or the other, but generally which is better?)

2. SASE or no SASE? (have heard opposing opinions on this)

3. Is it better to query production companies or agencies? (I am unrepresented and have not sold anything yet)

4. How important is it to open with the personalizing tidbit? "I see you've had success selling scripts in the ______ genre..." "You said in _______ magazine that you're always looking for new talent."

Do those little facts help or do they clutter up a space-crunched letter?

5. What should my goal be? "I'd like you to read my script" OR "Perhaps we can meet and discuss my script."

Does one goal have more success than the other?

6. Do I mention other scripts I've written? Or is it one script per letter?

7. Should the synopsis be open ended or should it sum up everything (including the ending)?

8. Should I include page count, genre, budget range?

9. Are the phrases "Referral Only" or "No unsolicited material" bluffs or locked doors?

I'll probably think of more questions later. Please answer any of the questions that you can.

Right now I'm doing my research and compiling an Excel list of people I want to query. But, as I said, the information about what makes a successful query letter is varied.

Thanks!

Linda, you are a Godsend. I really appreciate your help.

Congrats on the semis!

I think that good scripts always get overlooked in any competition.

BUT it's also very rare for a bad script to progress in the competition.

So for Semper Fi to make the Nicholl semis, it must be one hell of a script. Doesn't that put you in the top 100 out of 5000? Good luck in the rest of the competition!

I've heard nothing but bad things. Let me guess, your interactions with them went something like this:

1. You enter a logline on their website. (And it can be ANY logline. No matter how awful or innane).

2. They respond and ask for 15 pages.

3. They quickly ditch that in the trash without ever opening it, but they send you a glowing response.

4. Sadly, they can't take the chance on your work unless they have a third party critique it.

5. And the scam is on.

What agency needs a third party to tell them when someone's a good writer? And what agency makes the writer pay for that and figure it out themselves? I don't think The Screenplay Agency has ever sold a single piece of work.

I've been floating around the internet, checking out some of the free 14-day trials and such and I was wondering what sites have you found useful enough that you would pay to use (as a writer, any other internet "pay" sites are your own business).

Most of these industry sites have 6 month subscriptions for anything from $30-$50. Such as -

Inktip/ Inktip Preferred Newsletter

Moviebytes Who's Buying What (if you don't want to badmouth the board's sponsor, I understand)

IMDB Pro

Hollywood Creative/ Representation Directory

Any others? Worth it or not?

Linda,

I have to ask. What page color have you guys ended on? Have you framed your colored script?

Linda,

In many productions, the page color changes to reflect the revisions (white, blue, yellow, goldenrod, salmon, pink, tan, buff, etc). So, by the end, the shooting script is a virtual rainbow of colors. Often, they go through "2nd goldenrod" or "3rd salmon" or something.

The fact that yours went through only one revision speaks volumns about your work. That's what I was getting at. The script that was shot was pretty much the script that was on your computer screen. In an industry where EVERYONE wants to put in their input, it's impressive that your script went through untouched. If your shooting script is on white pages (instead of "3rd blue"), that really is an accomplishment. Congratulations, Linda. Tell us when it's released because I would love to see it.

Generally, I feel that transitions on spec scripts should be used only when it's part of the voice of the writer and if it helps the script. There certainly are times when a scene needs a quick cut to convey the humor/surprise/suspense of the sequence.

But (like everything), transitional elements should only be used when they aid in the storytelling process. They can easily become cumbersome and annoying when used too frequently. Sometimes it feels as if the writer is looking at the work as a director instead of a screenwriter (this can be obnoxious to some readers).

So, go ahead an use transitions if it's part of your voice and story. BUT if it's just you directing the camera in your mind, you might want to think of other ways to get the same idea across.

I also feel that no one is all evil. But all humans have the quality to commit evil deeds. There's no way to justify/rationalize/sympathize what Hitler did. His deeds and his legacy are truly despicable. I won't defend him.

But there must have been more to him than just evil. Perhaps that's the only way I can rationalize how millions of people followed him. Perhaps it's the only way I can believe how close he came to complete victory.

I think we'll be hard-pressed to find another real-life character as complex as Hitler - an insane man who almost conquered the world.

Regardless of whether it means anything in court, make sure there's a paper trail whenever you send a script.

Often, many prodcos prefer email (easier for them to handle). This is good for the writer because it leaves you with some sort of documentation of when you sent them the script.

Release forms are another form of paper trail. Usually, they're faxed in and you can print out the fax confirmation page. Just more evidence that your script actually is in their hands.

I get really anxious whenever I send a hardcopy script somewhere. Because then I have no proof that they ever took my work. Suddenly, it's my word against theirs.

D. Brin,

I'm not going to argue with you. Sorry if it sounded like I was defending Hitler or rationalizing what he did.

With many contests, you have to either win or be a finalist to get script requests by agents and prodcos. But with Nicholl, the quarterfinalists even get requests. I'd always encourage a writer to pop the $30 to enter it in Nicholl. It's one of the cheapest and most respected competitions in the business.

Another thing to remember is that contests are overrun with dramas. It makes sense. As a genre, dramas can more easily create complex characters and powerful scenes.

That being said, going against the grain and submitting an excellent and marketable comedy, romantic comedy, or horror (that has complex characters and imaginative scenes) might get you further.

Many competition readers are "Baby Agents", assistants to agents, or other people who are starting out. They judge competitions to find new talent and marketable scripts.

So, while "When Harry Met Sally" won't win many competitions, it might get you more script requests than "A Beautiful Mind."

Hey D. Brin,

I actually said that "When Harry Met Sally" probably wouldn't win "many" competitions. And that's because a comedy is more likely to fall through the cracks of a competition. Juding of screenplays is soooo subjective, and some judges will walk into their task with a bias against the more lighthearted genres.

The Nicholl Fellowship website lists the genres of winning scripts from 1989-2002.

* Action/adventure 6 * Caper/thriller/crime 11 * Comedy 4 * Romantic comedy 3 * Comedy drama 9 * Romantic drama 3 * Drama 32 * Horror 2 * Western 3

(I hope that copied okay. I've noticed that formatting often changes the moment I hit "add new message").

Dramas alone (not counting Rom Drama and Com Drama) account for 44% of the winning scripts.

So I have nothing against "When Harry Met Sally." I mainly write romantic comedies and will continue to do so. It's just that certain genres aren't respected as being "artsy" or "deep" and they don't stand up as well in competition.

But on the flip side, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of submissions are dramas, so maybe these numbers are just indicative of what people are writing.

I think a problem TV shows are having now is that they start with an excellent hook, but the hook will only last for one season. What then?

Take "Desperate Housewives." Season 1 had very clever writing and a great hook - "Why did Mary Alice commit suicide?" We wanted to know the answer to the question.

And when they answered it... what then? Now it feels like the show (and many others like it) are running in mud. Struggling to come up with new, zany scenerios. The shows are trying too hard to preserve the freshness of the first season, and the result is one stale episode after another.

That's my fear with Heros. What happens after they all meet and stop the crisis? Do they just face a new crisis next season? And the season after... and after...

Hey David,

Yep, that was me who said to use "CUT TO" if it's part of the voice of your script. And I stand by that.

I feel they should be used sparingly and only when necessary, but I won't go as far as to claim that they should NEVER be used (or that people call you an idiot for using them). Personally, I don't use them because I feel those lines could be better used for action, dialogue, or a shorter page count at the end.

But I have read a number of scripts that use transitions well. Sometimes, they're effective if you need to associate two similar visuals (ie. A person is shot and bleeding. Red blood is gushing from his wound, then CUT TO: a cop as he squirts red ketchup onto a burger). Okay, my example isn't great and really had no point, but you can hopefully see what I'm getting at. If the juxtaposition of those visuals is crucial to the story, a transition might help bring that to the reader's attention.

Anyway, I've seen transitions abused. I've seen them work very well. I don't like to use them, but I'm not on a crusade to destroy them.

Well, I'm not about to start a fight for something I don't even believe in. I don't use CUT TO and don't intend to, so I don't know why I'm their biggest advocate.

BURN IN HELL, EVIL "CUT TO:"!

What movie are you ashamed of loving?

Since we're all screenwriters or wannabe screenwriters, I bet we get asked the "What are your top five movies?" question. And sure, we can always spout Godfather, or Casablanca. But what movie makes your list that you're a little embarrassed about?

For me, Airplane! is the greatest comedy EVER. Parenthood is the greatest use of dialogue... EVER. And Jaws is the greatest character driven piece... EVER. I know you won't agree with me, but hey, it's how I feel.

And Question #2: What "great" movie do you feel is overrated?

I've never liked 2001. A Beautiful Mind was boring. And Annie Hall left me with an "eh" feeling.

Before making the move, you might want to exhaust the film opportunities in your own area. Some of the most successful members of this forum work from outside of Los Angeles (I believe Randy lives in Texas, Linda in Chicago, and Steven in Toronto).

The thing about living in Hollywood is that you'll be surrounded by writers. That's good and bad. It's certainly easier to find writing partners or support groups. But there's also a glut of scripts circulating through town, and therefore, it's more difficult to get a break. I know that in my hometown, being an aspiring screenwriter was a novelty (I was semi-famous for simply dreaming it). But out here, every other person you meet has a script in hand.

Don't think that if you move to LA, you'll suddenly find yourself stuck in an elevator with Spielberg at a time when he's looking for new pitches.

There are two main advantages to living in LA.

1. Networking. You may make a friend with someone who will become the assistant to a big producer. Or you'll make friends with other writers who can give you pointers. It can't hurt.

2. Convenience. When looking for an agent or manager, you don't want to give them any excuse to move on to the next writer. If they want to meet with you in two days, they don't want to hear you say "Ummm... I need to see if I can get a plane flight and hotel reservations that will work."

But to reiterate, make sure you check out all opportunities in your own area first.

If you want the logline of my opinion on the matter:

It can't hurt, but it might not help.

Hey Everybody,

I've been sent a contract for representation by a management company. I'm new at this and don't want to get gouged. Can anyone recommend a good entertainment lawyer who can read over the contract and tell me what loopholes there might be?

Many of the lawyers I've contacted draft the contracts instead of simply reading and analyzing them.

And what's a standard rate for this service?

Thanks. You can send me a private response or post it to the board.

One thing to remember about reveals is that they're almost always smoother on screen than on page. What you don't want is your reader getting to your reveal and saying, "Wait! Who is this guy?" And then having to go back and reread pages to figure out where you started misleading them. Because, to be honest, most of your readers won't take that time to reread anything.

I often air on the side of caution. If the whole script doesn't hinge on this particular character's reveal, then I say play it safe and go with clarity over misdirection.

The best advice is to try it both ways and give it to a friend who knows nothing about your story. If they're at all confused, then go simple.

Hey Gerard,

I know nothing about your script or your writing style, so there's not much I can comment on specifically.

There's a chance the person who commented on your script was entirely correct - maybe you do have excessive dialogue that hampers the story rather than enhancing it.

BUT

One opinion shouldn't hold too much sway over your writing decisions. Take the comments with a grain of stock.

I find that most readers (especially from contests) have a stock list of responses for scripts. Some of them include:

1. I didn't find myself rooting for your characters.

2. Your characters didn't arc.

3. Your Act____ was very strong, but the story/ticking clock/action faded during Act____.

4. Film is a visual medium, and I felt your script had too much dialogue.

As I said, any of those comments might sum up exactly what's wrong with your script. Or it may be a perfectly good script that didn't grab the reader and now they're fishing for criticisms.

The problem with contest feedback is that the judges are trying to create an objective evaluation of a subjective reading experience. When you submit your script to production companies, the comments will be less of, "Well written, but too much dialogue" and more of, "Budget too high," "Too similar to other movies," "Characters don't have star potential."

You might have to go with your gut. If you feel your script has dialogue that is subtle, operates on multiple levels, reveals information about the characters, and is smooth, then stick with it. If it's a good script then eventually someone will see past the standard "checklist of errors" and find the virtue.

However, it never hurts to reevaluate. Give the script a read-through and play the "What happens if I cut this line?" game.

Like everyone else said, I can't offer advice on your particular script because I haven't read it.

But I would like to caution you about a writer's trap you're nearing. It's the "but it worked in that movie" trap (and it's snared me many a time).

The thing about Kill Bill is that it was written by the man who would direct it; a man who has enormous creative freedom in Hollywood. So he only needed to transcribe his vision to himself, unlike most of us who need our vision to appeal to an endless string of readers.

I seriously doubt Kill Bill would progress in any competition. I doubt it would make it out of the story department in any studio or production company.

I always find it tempting to overlook the faults in my own scripts by saying, "It worked in Silence of the Lambs!" "It worked in Tootsie!" "It worked in Adaptation!"

It's great to use existing scripts to figure out ways to work out problematic scenes or characters (you want a great reveal? Read Usual Suspects). But never point to them as rationale for overlooking a problem.

Sorry if it seems as though I'm singling you out. That was my advice to everyone.

I definitely hear what you're saying. If I were to guess, I'd say there are a few reasons for the current trend of minimal description scripts:

1. The 1 page = 1 minute rule. Whether this rule is true or not doesn't matter, it's what flashes through every producer's mind. A long script is a more expensive movie and a more exhausting read. Cut it down anyway you can - the result is the cutting of action.

2. The speed at which scripts are read. Readers (whether contest judges or studio readers) fly through these things. It's much easier to speed read a dialogue-heavy script than to actually sit down and allow yourself to be transported to another world. Imagining another world takes effort. It's much easier to read the catchy dialogue.

3. The specialization of jobs in the business. Some say that you should let the director, set-decorator, construction, DP, and art department worry about creating a mood. As a writer, you're told your job is to write what the characters say and what they do.

On the flip side of this, I once talked to a studio reader about this subject. He said that the scripts that really stand out in the story department are the ones that are written for the readers. Meaning, the scripts that have a personality and eloquence. He said those are few and far between the bare-bones, shooting script style screenplays that most people write.

It's a mixed bag. Some people will tell you that spending time creating atmosphere and environment are unprofessional and show a lack of experience on the part of the writer. Others love to read scripts that create a world in which they can get lost.

For contests, as long as your formatting adheres to all the rules for margins, spacing, and font, you should be okay. There are a few things you should keep in mind though-

1. If you format your script yourself and it still doesn't look exactly like a Final Draft format, it may set a reader against you from the start. Some readers may see it as amateur or unprofessional and mentally deduct a few points for it. If your script is awesome, it may not matter in the end, but if a reader has to choose between a good script that's perfectly formatted and a good script that's hand formatter, you may have just stacked the odds against you.

2. What about after the contest? When you start getting script requests, the assumption will be that you'll send it either as a pdf or as a final draft document. Despite all the other software options, final draft is still the industry standard (it's the software downloaded on every agent's and producer's computer). Once again, you don't want people pre-judging you because they open up a hand formatted word document. If they decide to move forward on it, some poor assistant will probably get the job of transcribing everything into final draft anyway.

3. Final draft offers many other helpful features - such as script reports. You can immediately see how many line each character has, how long each scene is, what percentage of your script is action/dialogue, etc. As other people have mentioned, it's a vastly different experience to write with final draft than with a self-formatted word document.

I know I sound like a sales pitch for Final Draft. But this is the software that has become the industry standard. And if you're trying to break into Hollywood, the last thing you want to do is appear as anything less than standard.

But as I said in the beginning, self-formatting will be perfectly fine for contests. However, if you're serious about making screenwriting a career, I'd advise you to start setting aside a few hundred dollars to buy yourself a copy of Final Draft. You'll need it at some point.

I really enjoyed Studio 60, but I found that I won't miss it. I liked the characters, but I never became invested in the relationships. I guess I just liked the characters on a superficial level and never really got involved enough to "root" for them.

In contrast to that is "The Office." I know tons of people who watch every week because they are addicted to the relationship between Jim and Pam. I feel Studio 60 tried to manufacture that style of "addicting" relationships, but it ended up falling flat.

I heard somewhere that an unofficial rule says that paragraphs of action/description should never be more than 3 lines. That's not to say that you can't have multiple paragraphs, one after the other, but if you're spending more than 3 lines describing a room, you might want to do some editing.

Also, readers always prefer reading dialogue. They can get into dialogue more than they get into action/description. It's a fast read and they get more of a flow. Generally, the more white on the page, the better.

The rub is that readers are also hyper-conscious of "talky" scripts. As the old mantra goes, "Movies are a visual medium. Don't just have your characters talk for 1.5 hours!"

So, it's a balancing act. You want just enough description to keep the visuals alive, but not so much that it bogs down the reading.

I'd like to amend my line about "if you spend more than 3 lines describing a room."

I really only meant that you should aim to be brief. If the description, "It's a typical teenager girl's bedroom - pink sheets and posters of the newest teenage hunk" works for your purposes, then there's no need in going into intricate detail.

If you're describing the scene of a murder, you'll probably want more detail.

There have been a few posts lately that have asked about how much description a script should have. I don't know how many other people in this forum have worked on movies, but I thought this would be a good time to give a run-down of the standard jobs and responsibilities of a film crew.

I'm not saying that a screenwriter should NEVER overstep on to these people's jobs, but it's good to know what's expected of you and what's expected of other people.

So, when you sell your script and it gets greenlit, here is the list of people who will turn your vision into a tangible product.

Director and producer: These two people will oversee all of the following jobs. Every major decision must make it past the director and often the producer (different producers assume varying levels of responsibility).

Actors: We all know what they do. Remember that they have some intelligence too. They know when to deliver a line in an angry tone or a sympathetic tone. They know when to accent certain words. And they tend not to like it when writers dictate how they should perform.

Director of Photography: Never call this person a "camera man." The DP sets up the shots and determines the general look and feel of a scene (lighting, camera movements, etc). This is the DP's realm. The DP decides when to zoom, when to pan, when to use a crane, when to have a close-up, when to shoot an over the shoulder, etc. Therefore, the screenwriter doesn't need to write camera directions.

Assistant Director: The AD is in charge of everything that happens on set (this job has the shortest life-expectancy of any in Hollywood). The AD is generally in charge of the extras. The screenwriter doesn't need to worry about writing the actions of every single character on screen because the AD will handle it.

Editor: The editor cuts the movie together and oversees all aspects of post-production (post is often the longest part of the process, lasting around 6 months). This is the person who decides when to "Fade to:" when to "Cut to:" When to use a wipe instead of a dissolve. When to use a split screen.

Art Department/ Set decorator/ Prop Department: These departments kind of overlap. These people design the sets. The screenwriter doesn't need to establish every element in the shot because set-dec will. Props takes care of all the props on set (duh!). In short, these people will decide what books your protagonist has in their office, what pictures are on his desk, what model of hunting rifle is above the fireplace.

Music supervisor/ Music editor/ Music composer: This three-headed monster decides what music goes in the movie. It doesn't matter if the screenwriter has been listening to "Hard Day's Night" on repeat while writing the climatic montage. The writer is not the one who chooses the music. And mostly, music is very much constrained by budget (ie. don't get attached to any song that people have actually heard of).

Stunt coordinator/ Story board artist: These two people work together to chart out every fist fight and car chase sequence in the movie. The writer doesn't need to worry about writing down every punch and every turn. These guys will figure it out.

These are the major jobs that exist on a movie set. Doesn't leave much room for the writer does it? The trick is to write a script that guides all of these people in their job. It's a balancing act. If a producer says, "I couldn't really visualize this scene" the excuse, "Well, that's not my job" won't go very far.

A writer's job is to transport all of the above mentioned people into a new world and new story. The writer shouldn't tell them how to do their job, but the writer must influence them. Write a good story and fill it with good characters. You'll make everyone else's job that much easier.

Randy,

I may not have made it clear enough in my previous post, but I agree with your major point that the Director (and often the producer depending on their level of involvement) must okay ALL major decisions. But still after extensive conversations (aka "pre-production"), the DP is the one who sets up the shot, the stunt coordinator is the one who creates the stunts, the editor is the one who cuts the film together, etc.

The director oversees it all, but the actual tasks are performed by other people. I think I mentioned this in one of the earlier paragraphs.

Anyway, your post had two main messages: the director is in control (as I stated) and the exact job of the writer.

If you take a script and remove all the jobs that everyone else has in making the film, that doesn't leave much for the writer. In the end, all scripts would be a scene heading, a line of action, and dialogue. So as writers, we need to determine what elements of description are essential for conveying our story. But to come to such a determination, we need to first realize which elements of the script aren't needed at all. I've read far too many scripts by new writers that include camera angles and music cues because the writer thought, "Well, I'm writing a movie, so I had better include ALL aspects of the movie." And those scripts do more to alienate the reader than to draw the reader in.

The script needs to create enough of a feel that everyone who reads it is on the same page. There are proper ways to create that feel and there are improper ways to create it. Generally, many people look down on shot descriptions. Generally, there's no need to choreograph a fight scene. Generally, you should never say write something like, "Montage set to Blind Melon's 'No Rain.'"

So once you strip away all the fluff and all the excess description, what are you left with? Story and character. And that's what people want to read. That's what will get their imagination flowing.

By the end of production, your script will have been turned into a "shooting script" and probably includes shot descriptions, transitions, music choices, etc.

Am I correct in assuming that you primarily direct your own work? If so, then you're looking at this from a different angle than the orignal post's intent.

But you are correct about me. I was writing this from the perspective of Hollywood and not the Indie world. And I meant the original post for anyone who's writing for the Hollywood crowd and submitting to agents and prod-cos instead of investors who "have never read a script before."

I'm not a budget expert so please correct me if I'm wrong.

The major expenses (besides the above the line talent) are:

Locations - movies that take place on only a handful of sets are cheap as opposed to movies that need to be shot on location in exotic places. The more locations, the more exotic the locations, and the larger the scale of locations (or sets) increase the budget.

VFX - A low budget movie won't use any. A mid-range budget might have some green screen. A high budget will have motion effects or effects that the characters interact with (as opposed to green screen effects that they don't interact with).

As far as I can tell, those might be the major below-the-line expenses. If you're placing a script in a budget range, those are the two criteria you should probably look at: locations and VFX.

But anyone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Randy,

It's a good thing I never attempted to portray myself as "experienced" when it comes to assembling a budget.

And I know you're experienced because you've actually directed your own movies and had to wrangle the financing for them. So I'm sure you've had to get your hands dirty with the budget.

I still think if you're trying to determine if your script falls into the categories of low, medium, or high budgets, a good place to start would be to look at 1) the locations required by the script 2) the effects required by the script and 3) the size of the cast required by the script (this wasn't in my original list, but Steven reminded me of it).

Those three will give you a solid base-point for determining your below-the-line budget range.

On a movie I was working on, a big name actor was given $75,000 a shooting day in "perks." I think this included a staff of personal assistants as well as his own crew and trailer. Incredible.

I've always been a big believer of knowing when to move on. It sounds like you're spending a lot of good money searching for a reader who "gets you." Since you're a writer, I'm sure you have dozens of ideas swirling through your head that you'd love to get down on page. Why not work on something else? If your next script gets attention, you can always pull out this script as a work sample.

I've seen too many friends and too many would-be writers work on only one script for years. It was their masterpiece. By the end, they had invested so much into one script (and had that one script rejected) that they couldn't face starting again on something new.

When you do get to your coveted meeting with an agent or producer, most likely, they'll ask, "What else you got?" and if your answer is "Nothing," you haven't done yourself any favors. Agents and producers want to see someone who can consistently hit a home run.

So, I wouldn't necessarily tell you to beat a potentially dead horse.

And now that I've told you to quit, it's time for another story.

A well-known producer once did me the favor of reading my script (he was a producer on the year's highest grossing romantic comedy; the same genre as my script). He called and said, "It's very clever and very well-written, but there's something inherently wrong with the concept." When I asked him if there was a way it could be improved, he replied, "My advice is to move on to something new."

He was really nice and he was doing me a favor, but his advice was essentially "bury it."

However, three months and a massive rewrite later, that script earned me representation.

You'll just need to figure out for yourself if it's time to bury your script or keep plugging away at it.

The only part that confuses me is the "why?"

I don't post much on this board, but I've lurked for awhile. I've read some of the threads by posers before. Usually, the posers invent some elaborate life story that tricks us into caring. I tend to believe they do it in hopes that some big time producer will read their thread and say, "What a great story they've created! They must be an amazing writer! Let's sign them to a contract."

Others pose on message boards in the pure hopes of starting fights. They start threads on controversial topics and insult other users.

But Bill/Bobby, if they are the same person, don't seem to have much point to being "posers." They're not starting fights, and they're not entrancing anyone with their story-telling ability. There's the vague appearance that they want to start some sort of writer's revolution against studio readers and contest judges.

So, why are they here? Perhaps they're here solely to waste our time, but as far as character motivation goes, that's pretty weak.

Hey Bobby,

I guess I'm just confused. You have some allegations being thrown at you, but as far as I can tell, your posts haven't been malicious at all.

I may as well come out and ask you directly: Are you and Bill the same person?

I read that there was a bidding war for the script and that the authors earned $2.5 million for it (an amazing sum for two unproduced writers).

Apparently, only after it was sold was it reenvisioned as the sequel to Bruce Almighty.

Makes you wonder what the original draft was like. Although I wonder that about a lot of movies.

Wow...

We were all pawns in Bill's diabolically intricate plot. All this time, the actual maniac wasn't Bill at all. Instead, it was... Bill?

As far as twist endings go, this one needs some work.

I would love to say, "Write whatever is in your heart." But the truth is, I've seen several writers do just that and their scripts end up being self-serving and uninteresting.

I'd say there are only two times when it's completely fine to truly write whatever you want. 1) If you plan on producing it yourself and 2) If you don't care if you sell it or not.

If your goal is to sell a script and have it produced, then you need to keep an eye out for how it will be received by others. As writers, our scripts are just the first step in the journey towards a completed movie. If you want a script made, it has to connect not just to the writer, but to the producer, the director, the actors, and the paying audience. That's a lot of people to please. And they'll all be looking for different things in it (the producers might be looking at it financially, the director artistically, and so on).

However, if you just write for commercial appeal, your script will never rise above the sea of crap floating around Hollywood. You'd end up writing nothing but "boy meets girl; boy loses girl; boy gets girl back" romantic comedies.

I try to find a subject that interests me. Really interests. Something that I can throw my heart into for several months or several years. And then I step back and try to pick out the aspects of that idea that would interest larger groups of people. I try to find that universal chord to strike in each unique story.

But if you want your script to become more than just ink and paper, you need to see it in a broader sense. While the financial, comercial, and mass appeal aspects shouldn't be the driving force in the creation of your story, you'll be in a world of hurt if you turn a blind eye to them.

I don't think movies need to go the route of making Biblical epics in order to be successful. The traditionalist crowd would love to see a movie that just reaffirmed their values.

It's not about pandering to them, but about giving them movies they can watch with their families. Movies with traditional messages.

I didn't see Evan Almighty, but I did see Bruce Almighty. What I saw in "Bruce" was a religious theme so watered down that it speaks to nobody.

I apply only to the major competitions (Nicholl, Disney). I sometimes do the second tier (Scriptapoloza, Page), but I've always had just an "eh" feeling about them.

I apply to competitions for one reasons - exposure. I don't care about cash prizes or free software or anything else they offer. I'm here because I'm going to make screenwriting my career and placing in big competitions offers a much better pathway for that than being a finalist in dozens of little competitions.

Nicholl is obviously the best competition to submit to. They are well respected within the industry and they publish their list of scripts that place in the quarterfinals or above. Many agencies, management companies, and production companies look at that list and request scripts based on it.

I placed in the quarterfinal round recently and received a dozen script requests from it. No other competition can generate that kind of response.

Winning many little competitions won't necessarily help you. I have a friend who's an assistant in a fairly large management company here in LA. He says they often get queries from people who list off all the competitions they've won. The manager's response? "Gee, if your script is so fricken awesome, why hasn't it sold yet?"

Now you might luck out if you're a finalist or winner of one of the 2nd tier competitions. Many of the readers for comps like Scriptapolooza and Page are actually baby-agents or managers; people who are just starting out in the representation biz and are looking for clients. If they like your work, they'll try to sign you. And if they're good at their job, you can drag each other up the ladder.

The important thing to remember is why you're entering contests. If you're doing it to see where you stack up, then you might be better off going for feedback competitions and such. If you're trying to jump start your career, then there's no substitute for being a finalist in Nicholl and Disney.

Hey Martin,

My problem is often the exact opposite. I get so excited about the new script I want to write that I might wrap up the script I'm working on a little early. I heard once that no script is every done - people just run out of time or patience. I think that's true.

But it sounds like your current script is doing well. If one more rewrite might push it into the "great" category, go for it. But there is such a thing as overwriting.

For anyone who didn't read the article, I can sum up all 10 myths in five words:

There are no free rides.

There's no easy, magic pathway towards becoming a successful screenwriter. In fact, there are many companies and organizations that turn a profit off of selling hope to aspiring writers. The only way to make it is to write great scripts (notice the plural; you need one homerun after another) and run your butt off promoting them.

So many people write a screenplay as a "get rich quick" scheme. Little do they know that it ain't that quick and you won't get very rich.

In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, when Kirk and McCoy are sent to the prison camp, the Klingon warden makes a little speech. It is almost a verbatim homage to the warden's opening speech in "Bridge on the River Kwai."

Another example is the scene in the subway station in "The Untouchables." The whole bit with the people falling and the baby carriage is an homage to Eisenstein's classic "The Battleship Potemkin" where a similar scene plays out on the Odessa Steps.

So homages do exist and they can be very blatant. Your homework is to look up scripts that use homage and see how they're handled.

One problem you'll encounter if you don't identify the homage is that readers might not know it's there, or worse, they don't realize it's an homage and instead think it's plagiarism or "been done."

The problem with identifying an homage is that the reader might say, "Well, I never saw 'Battleship Potemkin' so this means nothing to me."

Raiders of the Lost Ark is probably a movie that everyone has seen, but that raises the question, why does this movie need an homage? Does it really help your script or is it a self-indulgent way of winking at yourself? I don't know.

Go ahead and sign it. When you start getting script requests from agencies, managers, and prod-cos, some of them will ask you to sign as well. You'll have to take the risk sooner or later.

Release forms are a strange practice. Not everyone uses them because they honestly don't mean a whole lot. Plagiarism of an idea is hard enough to prove with or without a release form.

I'm spinning this off from a previous thread:

Anyway, I like to equate "protecting yourself from plagiarism" with "protecting yourself from a car accident."

In short, the only way to not get in an accident is to not drive. And the only 100% effective way to not get plagiarized is to never write (or even come up with an idea for that matter).

However, there are many precautions you can take to keep from getting in a car accident. Be alert, concentrate on the road, obey the laws that are in place for your protection.

The same holds true for protecting your writing. Register your scripts; only allow reputable people within the industry to read them; establish a personal relationship with readers (if possible); and don't blab about your amazing idea in every nightclub in LA. Do all of that, and you're protecting yourself from plagiarism.

It's not a 100% effective defense, but I would say that most plagiarism (just like most traffic accidents) stem from carelessness.

Writers are starved for attention. We desperately want someone to tell us how genius we are. So, we get over-anxious. We send our scripts to sketchy companies just because they happen to show interest. We tell our great ideas to complete strangers for no reason. And it doesn't take much theft to ruin your idea ("You have a comedy about Noah's Ark in present day? Sorry, something similar has already been greenlit.")

But, as I said before, the only way to avoid car accidents is to never drive. If you want to be completely secure from plagiarism, you need to delete your hard-drive, burn your manuscripts, and never speak of your writing to anyone.

There are many stories of aspiring writers who actually get an "in" with an agent at a reputable company. The writer then sabotages their career by refusing to pitch their script. Paranoia. Some writers refuse to put their "hooks" into queries or pitches because of their paranoia. Simply putting the words "high-concept" in your query won't get you very far.

Nobody will sign a writer without reading their scripts. Few people will read scripts without knowing the hook or great idea behind it.

I know I get a slight lump in my throat every time I send my script somewhere. Hopefully, I've limited the risk by only choosing people and companies I feel I can trust. Go with your gut.

Here's a pretty standard release form I had. I'm sorry if the formatting gets messed up.

I am currently submitting to you with this Agreement my material entitled __________________________________ (hereinafter called the "Material") I agree and understand that: 1. Because of your position in the entertainment industry: (a) you receive many ideas, formats, stories, suggestions and other materials which you do not solicit or otherwise request; (b) you generally do not accept, consider or review unsolicited material unless the person submitting the material has signed this Agreement; (c) you would not accept, consider or review the material if I did not sign this Agreement; and (d) no confidential relationship is established by my submitting the Material to you. 2. You will not be held responsible if the Material is accidentally lost, misplaced, damaged or destroyed, in whole or in part. 3. You will review the Material within a reasonable time after you receive a copy of this agreement which I have electronically or manually signed and submitted to you. 4. I am not waiving, and this Agreement will not limit, my copyright in the Material. I understand that you may use in any fashion: (a) any matter which is independently developed by you or your employees or which is otherwise made available to you and which contains elements or aspects which are similar to literary property contained in the material and/or (b) any elements or aspects of or (c) matter contained in the Material which is not original with me, new, unique, concrete and novel and/or which is in the public domain. I will not sue you or bring any action or proceeding against you if you use any such matter, not for your failure to compensate me for your use of he Material if you have not agreed in writing to do so, and you are entitled to an injunction or other equitable remedy if such a suit, action or proceeding is brought. 5. You have no obligation to me including any obligation to compensate or make payments to me, unless you expressly agree to do so, except for these expressly stated in this Agreement. 6. I hereby represent and warrant that: (a) the Material was created and is owned free and clear of all other interests; (b) I have full right to submit the Material to you and to comply with the Agreement; and (c) the description of the Material included in this form is complete. I will fully reimburse you if you incur any losses, damages or expenses (including, without limitation, lawyers' fees and expenses) because any or all of these statements I made in this paragraph are not true, or because any person, firm or corporation claims that any or all of those statements are not true, or as a result of your having or using the Material. Page 2 7. If more than one party submits this Agreement as the submitting party, then references to "I" or "me" throughout this Agreement shall apply to each such party, jointly and severally. 8. I have read and understand this Agreement. You have made no representations, oral or written, of any kind to me. This Agreement states our entire agreement. 9. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of California applicable to agreements made and to be performed wholly therein. The courts located in Los Angeles, California (federal or state, as applicable) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes arising hereunder. Yours very truly, Name:__________________________________ (Signature) Print Name:__________________________________ Address:_________________________________ __________________________________ Telephone: ________________________________

Yep. As I feared my previous post came through as one giant block of text.

Most agents are signatories of WGA meaning they have to abide by WGA rules. Managers do not.

That's why you'll see that agents charge a 10% commission while managers often charge 15%. Managers also put clauses in their deals that guarantee them a producer's credit if the movie goes into production. Some of them refund that 15% commission if it goes into production though.

The benefit of a manager is that they usually spend more time giving writers notes and crafting the script to maximize marketability than agents do. They tend to keep smaller rosters of writers and have more personal contact with them.

They also seem to be more willing to look at stuff from new writers.

Just from what I've seen, it seems as if many young writers begin their careers with managers. When they become fully established, they find themselves agents. After all, there is no management company that is anywhere near as large and powerful as CAA, ICM, UTA, APA, Gersh, or Endeavor.

This doesn't directly answer the question, but if your script deals with a specific tribe, identify that tribe and use it in your action sequences. Tribal names will both identify the characters and are politically correct.

"A group of CHEROKEE TRADERS approaches the camp..."

I use italics for emphasis. I find that it's more discreet than caps, underlined, or bold.

I hear what Randy's saying in that caps are often used for shooting scripts. That's so a person can see the word during a quick scan of the page.

But I find that when just reading a script, italics is more subliminal and not as intrusive.

I would urge against making the word bold because the bold will draw the eye of the reader even when they're not on the particular line of dialogue. It's distracting.

To echo everyone else's comments, use emphasis sparingly. There are times, however, when a line of dialogue must have the proper emphasis or it will be completely misunderstood.

Linda,

Congratulations on everything!

In many ways, the things that seemed to have gone wrong have actually worked out just fine. If the director was more in control, there's a good chance that you wouldn't have had any input during post-production. For most films, the script and the film become the director's vision. Oh, they'll hold a screening for the writer and take the writer's notes, but it's usually in the manner of, "Yeah, we'll take it under advisement."

Your experience is truly unique. And it's wonderful that you've been able to put your hand in on all levels of production. And as a result, your vision is still alive.

And now, I feel I must defend the honor of film editors and editorial crews. I hope the readers on this board don't start diminishing the importance of editors in the process.

On most Hollywood films, post-production takes much longer than production (often 4-6 months). During that time, although the director is still in command, the editor becomes his #1 general who has a very significant say in all areas of post - picture editing, VFX, sound, and music. With the exception of Linda's film, directors work very closely with editors and the editors have a lot of creative influence.

And editors are more than people who push buttons on an Avid. There's a reason the editor gets its own opening title card. There's also a reason why every big-named director works with the same editor movie after movie.

Post-production is largely aimed at affecting the subconscious of the viewer.

If you can, try to watch the dailies for some of the biggest named actors. Your mouth will drop open and you'll be saying, "What the hell are they doing up there?" You wouldn't believe me how many great performances have been created because of an editor's ability to splice together different takes, record the right ADR, and approve the right VFX.

Your biggest threat isn't from producers. Stealing an idea and passing it off to an established writer is much more expensive than just throwing an option on a script to an unknown writer.

The bigger threat is from other writers stealing your idea. I don't know how Inktip operates, but if your logline is listed for anyone with access to the internet I'd be cautious.

If you have a premise that is easily transfered to another script, (ie. "Comedy about a present day Noah who is told by God to build an Ark"), you might not want to put it out there for the world to see. Instead, the query route might be better - find respected, established prodcos instead of blasting everyone in the industry with your idea.

My advice is to see when you need to take advantage of that Inktip offer. Push it to as late as possible. In the meantime, plan your attack and start contacting the appropriate companies. If nobody bites, then cast your wider net.

I wanted to make a quick (or not so quick) comment on Orlanda's post.

There are pros and cons to having a diverse portfolio of writing. It's true that if you have multiple genres and formats it means an agent can pitch you in virtually any situation. And it's always good experience for a writer to try genres that are out of their comfort zone.

But there's a flip side to this as well. Producers are often VERY narrow in their genres. Some make only romantic comedies, some make only horror, some make only teen after-school specials.

If you have a wide array of scripts, it makes the agent's job more difficult after the first pitch. Since many "successful" pitches end with the producer saying, "That was a good script, but not what I'm looking for. What else does he have for me?"

If the producer does only horror and you only have 1 horror script, the answer is, "nothing." And then the agent needs to go through the same process with the romcom producer, the after-school special producer, and the TV pilot producer. And as far as they are all concerned, you're a one-trick pony.

Spec scripts are hard to sell, especially if the writer is an unknown. Producers want to hire writers they know can turn out a quality product (in a specific genre) under tight deadlines. One person told me, "It's better to have 5 really good scripts than 1 great script."

So, what's the solution? Is it better to have diversity or volume? Well... probably both.

The solution is simple. Keep writing. Never stop.

Sorry if this post has NOTHING to do with the difference between agents and managers.

From what you're describing, I'd say it's legit. Often, the people who get credited on IMDB are not the people who do the initial leg work.

There are assistants and interns whose job it is to find material and bring it to the company heads. These people rarely get credit.

You should try to find their website. Often, a website will list all the staff names, including the assistants (usually not interns though).

Also, check their email. If it's a company email address, they're almost certainly legit. I do get a little skeptical when I get a request from hotmail or yahoo or something.

But go with your gut. From what you say, they certainly sound legit. Sign their release forms, send in your script, follow up in two weeks, and then forget about it and keep writing.

Hey Don,

There are only three possible scenarios.

1. They haven't read it.

2. They read it and didn't like it.

3. They read it and liked it.

If they read it and liked it, they would have already responded because it's their job to hustle when they find talent. Their response will be either, "I really liked it. You should come in and we'll talk." or "It was good, but not what we're looking for. Do you have anything else?" Either way, you can go ahead and introduce Mr. Foot to the inside of Mr. Door.

The two week follow up is to determine whether you're looking at Scenario #1 or Scenario #2.

"Hey _______, I was wondering if you had a chance to read _______ yet. Take care."

The response will either be, "I've been slammed at work. I'll try to get to it this weekend." Or "Yeah, it's not quite what we're looking for. Best of luck!"

If they read it and don't tell you they didn't like it (until after you ask), then they probably won't take the time to give you comments. Go ahead and thank them and ask for suggestions if you like, but don't expect anything substantial. In fact, if they reply, their comments will be very generic in the "it's not you, it's us" form.

Randy,

There are a few problems with your previous post. First of all, there is not a strike going on "right now." The contact expires on Nov 1. But this is hardly consequential because the effects of the strike are all too apparent in Hollywood.

If Andres is only looking for representation, then there is nothing wrong with sending out queries at this time. In fact, since they can't sell anything, agents are finding their usually hectic worlds grinding to a halt. They might have time now to look at queries that they would have immediately tossed before (but don't take my word for it; I don't like to play those "is now the best time" games).

In any case, the strike will have a strong impact on Andres' ability to sell his script, but not necessarily his ability to find representation.

In response to the original post, Andres says, "The logic being having an agent is better than not having one at all." I want to caution you. If that becomes your mantra, you're walking into a world of hurt.

Many managers require that you sign a contract allowing them to represent your script for a certain amount of time. Basically, this is an exclusive deal (designed not for the writer's benefit at all, but very common for new writers). If your rep is worthless, then you've just wasted time. If you manage to hustle and sell it yourself (or with help from a different agency), then Mr. Worthless still gets their 10-15% cut.

I would stick to people who have sold something in the past 3-5 years. If it went into production, even better.

And then, if you do get positive responses, don't jump at the first sign of someone being interested. Find a rep who you trust. Find someone who shows genuine interest in your work. Find someone who's going to step into the ring for you.

If you're a good writer, then you WILL get representation eventually. Whether it be through pitch fests, competitions, queries, or random people you meet. Don't sell out early.

Randy,

The point of the argument isn't the inevitability of the strike. Everyone agrees the strike is going to happen. This isn't the time for ANYONE to sell scripts to Hollywood.

But to advise someone that now isn't the time to search for representation is well... bad advice.

A sale won't happen. Everyone needs to realize that upfront. But the agents and managers in town now have nothing to do. They're sitting on their hands because nobody is buying during the strike. Meaning, they may have more time on their hands to read queries and scripts from unknown writers that would have otherwise ended up in the garbage.

Now, I make no promises that all the agencies won't just go on vacation. I never put real faith in the people who try to estimate the ebbs and flows of the industry, "If you send your script before Christmas, they'll read it on vacation... blah, blah, blah." The truth is a good/marketable script will rise to the top and a bad script will sink no matter what time of year it is.

But I would never advise a new writer to try to wait out the strike instead of hustling to find representation. Once the strike is over, there's going to be a flood of material completely saturating the market. Any new writer will be lost in that flood.

Sorry, Randy, but we definitely don't agree on this one.

The "How will this affect us?" depends on what aspect you're asking about.

For the rights and pay of writers? Hopefully the strike will be very beneficial. There's a great deal of unity on the part of the writers and they have many other unions supporting them too. I don't know if you live in LA, but take my word for it, production here is grinding to a halt. This is hitting every level of the film and television industry (except for post-production, but they'll be feeling it soon). I actually need to get into Warner Bros tonight, but I don't want to cross a picket line.

As for non-WGA writers who are trying to break into the industry...

It's a mixed bag. Producers and studios aren't buying anything so all careers are on hold. As such, agents aren't trying to sell anything.

But there is the chance that agents are still reading scripts. They have a lot of time on their hands now and while some are going on vacation, some are catching up on their workload. There MIGHT be more of a chance for an agent to take an honest look at a query or submission. A chance.

It's hard to say if the door is open or closed.

Now, has anyone heard anything about the scab industry? As far as I can tell, everyone is just shutting down and not even hiring scab writers. Has anyone heard of non-WGA writers getting work now? I see all sorts of ads on craigslist from people who are seeing this opportunity as their big break, but I can't tell if anything is coming from that.

Hey Terry,

I hope the link works, but here's a list of all the companies besides the major studios that WGA is striking against.

http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2537

I'm not sure about marketing yourself to producers, but you should definitely be marketing yourself to agents. No one's striking against the agents, but they're caught in the middle anyway. They really have nothing to do.

Producers?... That's dicey, but I don't know what the actual rules are, especially with non-WGA writers (who, naturally, aren't bound by rules).

Well, there's no reason for the AMPTP to reach a deal now. They'd just have to turn around and put all the shows on the annual 1-2 week Christmas hiatus. So why not try to sweat out the WGA's resolve over the holidays?

Also, public opinion is high on the WGA's side right now. But the longer this goes on, the more that support will wane. IATSE is already getting a little antsy. More and more people in this town will soon turn against the writers.

And then there's the issue of SAG and DGA. If AMPTP drags their feet on these negotiations, by the time June rolls around, SAG and DGA will have ZERO public support in a strike of their own. The below-the-line crews will call for their heads if production shuts down again this summer.

So, in the end, prolonging the strike is definitely in the AMPTP's best interest. Sure, they're losing millions of dollars, but they can afford to lose that. The writers and the below-the-line crews can't afford to lose the thousands of dollars of income that this strike is costing.

But none of that matters to me. WGA is fighting a good fight and I don't know if any of you have spent any time on the picket lines, but spirits are high.

"HONK IF YOU SUPPORT WRITERS!"

The truth is that nobody is gobbling up scripts. The studios already stockpiled their scripts (from established WGA writers) before the strike. And most of those scripts are useless because a normal studio feature goes through dozens of rewrites during the course of production.

In all likelihood, there's lots of ghostwriting and backdoor deals going on between writers and producers. But those only involve the established, respected writers.

I think on the pendulum of film history, we're actually swinging back towards the Hollywood ending.

As has been stated, films reflect the society in which we live. But it's not a direct reflection. In fact, it's often an inverse reflection. In just the last year, we've watched the mainstream horror genre die out. Meanwhile, comedies (Knocked Up, Superbad) are raking in more money than ever. Fantasy films (which almost always have a happy ending) are huge right now. Every successful children's fantasy book is being bought up and produced with a feel good end.

Downer movies (like Requiem for a Dream) seemed to peak in popularity in the years before Sept 11. The economy was strong, we had no enemies, we were the undisputed world power, and we also had no identity.

After Sept 11, the world became a darker, more morose place. And films (a constant source of escapism) have generally become happier more escapist themselves.

I've noticed films about Iraq and terrorism in general have been doing very poorly. I don't know if that's because the films are just plain bad or because nobody wants to see that stuff right now. Meanwhile, superheros, fantasy, and comedy are all kings of the box office.

But this is all my personal opinion. I haven't done any quantitative analysis on market trends. I call 'em as I see 'em.

It's a scam. No agency requests that the writer gets their own coverage. Why? Because that's what agencies do. They write the coverage!

So, let's give WL the benefit of the doubt. Let's say they are legit. Then why do they need you to get your own coverage? Are they too lazy to write it themselves? Do they not trust their own instincts and feel they need the opinions of a complete (yet "professional") stranger? Are they incapable of writing their own coverage?

All of the above point to "Bad Agency! Run away!" And that's assuming they are legit.

Personally, I'm not even making that assumption. This is a scam. If not, then these jokers will never get you a sale.

I've heard that Spielberg wants to do a remake of "Sugarland Express." Apparently, it's one of his films that he really wasn't satisfied with and thinks he can actually achieve his original vision. It would be one of the rare times that a director has remade his own work.

But it probably won't happen. Why? Because Spielberg has complete autonomy in the film world and he knows it. Every story in the world is at his fingertips, so why go back to something that's been done?

These release forms are completely standard. With so many of the same ideas floating around this town, the company wants to protect itself from some writer coming back with a lawsuit because their script used a plague spread by monkeys, and the company just made a movie using a plague spread by monkeys.

You'll run into this release form time and time again. Here's my advice:

1. Register your script. Have some legal evidence that says when you wrote it.

2. Research if it's a reputable company. A company with a reputation on the line is much less likely to plagiarize.

3. Send it in.

4. Be confident in your writing. Know this up front - Your concept has already been written. Many times. Be confident that you've approached this concept in a way that's unique to you. Be confident that you have the best approach to "plague spread by monkeys" or "Noah's Ark in DC suburbs" or "snakes on a plane."

I get a pang of anxiety every time I send my script anywhere, but it's the only way.

It's very wise to know what's hot and what's not in this industry. But I would caution against chasing hot streaks.

The problem with scripts that are very timely is that they become "untimely" rather quickly.

If you're an established writer, you're already ahead of the herd. You can afford to barf out a garbage first draft with a killer logline and submit it to your agent. The sale will be based on your previous body of work and the logline.

If you're a new writer, you don't have that luxury. You're in the herd no matter what. And the time it takes to move up the ranks of readers and get a script into the hands of a deal maker, the industry might have already moved on. With no resume to your name, your script had better be pretty awesome too.

The result very well may be that you're always writing obsolete scripts.

My advice, for new writers, is to follow broader trends and hit up evergreens. Romantic comedies are always hot. Write something with a great logline and a small budget.

For an example, let's say you were monitoring the success of Knocked Up and Superbad. The R-rated Apatow gross-out comedy is big! You go to work writing and promoting your script.

Then Walk Hard comes out (produced by Apatow). Huge bomb. And suddenly buyers are more cautious about R-rated gross-out comedy. If the next movie in that genre also bombs, you've just written yourself into a corner. The failures of Hostel 2 and Captivity slammed the door on the torture genre. Actually, horror was struggling before that. A few years ago, the industry had a glut of horror movies, all of which did poorly.

Why? Because everyone is thinking "Write like the wind, lead the thundering herd." So instead of running ahead of the pack, many new writers managed to position themselves in the center of a highly competitive pack.

I have never heard of this "don't end with dialogue" rule. And if I had, I wouldn't pay attention to it.

When choosing to end with action or dialogue, consider:

1. Reading ease. In general, whatever feels right is what you should stick with. Use what the scene calls for and nothing else. Sometimes, the extra coda of action ("They step towards the door") is necessary.

2. Pace. Keep the script moving. Adding an extra line of action may slow the script down. Especially if there is a constant justifying of the dialogue with action. On the contrary, there are times when the characters need to take a physical step forward after their conversation.

3. Transitions. "No one could be that stupid." Next scene - we meet someone who's that stupid.

The transition is much more effective if the dialogue is the subliminal link.

On the other hand, if a conversation ends with your characters inside a room, but they're outside in the next scene, we should see them walk towards a door.

But here's the truth of the matter - readers don't care if your scene ends on an action or a dialogue! So don't worry about it. Do whatever makes the story flow better.

Hey Alexis,

Here are my comments-

1. The pacing seems a bit off. You're right that you need to be into the story by page 12, but the pages I read feel like there were multiple false starts. The agent moving in felt like a start; the assignment felt like a start. And I feel we haven't really been introduced to the actual story yet.

My advice is to start even later. You could start with Charlie finishing his work and taking it to his agent, but then only walking to the bathroom to pass it off to Jonathan while he's on the can. Something like this sets up a quirky opening, but it also takes pages off your setup and allows the pace to flow more gently.

But, this depends on-

2. Charlie and Jonathan's backstory/ relationship. This has been brought up by other posters (meaning it's something you probably should address). No legit agent would go through this for a listless client; agents are too busy. Meaning... Jonathan is either not a legit agent (although he's introduced wearing a nice suit), or Charlie is not your average drifting client.

3. It's your script, so you may do as you please, but I strongly urge you against having a writer as your main character (especially a screenwriter). People tend to write what they know, and all writers know what it means to be writers. There are thousands of scripts about struggling screenwriters. When you submit it, people will roll their eyes. Change it to something different and you'll get a better response.

And, as with all comments, take 'em or leave 'em.

Randy,

I just read your response and have to say I was surprised by it.

I know you have directed several films and shorts and have a wealth of experience. But I've worked in post-production (specifically editorial) for years and I have to wonder what kind of lame editors are you working with?

The editors I know are quite capable of pacing a movie appropriately without resorting to jump-cuts because "Ahhhh!! It's not in the script!!"

Actors keep acting until "cut." And any director worth his salary doesn't yell "cut" until a few beats past the end of the scene. Why? To give the editor room to wiggle. A little bit of run-off. And then the editor plays around until s/he finds what creates a well-flowing story. Sometimes it's fast cuts, sometimes it's more even and smooth.

But I would NEVER advise a writer to clutter up their script with stage directions that are totally obvious to the actors.

Often, it's beneficial to end on an action. Sometimes it serves no purpose. And if something serves no purpose in your script DON'T PUT IT IN YOUR SCRIPT.

Readers aren't judging you as amateur because of a silly "rule" like this. Readers are looking for a marketable idea that has been executed to perfection.

My advice is to worry about the ease of reading. Don't worry about post-production. Believe me, editorial works itself out.

Randy,

Well said. You are a filmmaker. I myself am a writer. I believe most people on here are writers. That is why I give my advice to writers, and I tell them when people are giving writers bad advice.

And here is my advice: When the scene ends in dialogue, the script should end in dialogue. When the scene ends in action, the script should end in action. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's a decent guideline.

I admit that I haven't seen your films, Randy, and because of that I can't question your skills as a filmmaker.

But it worries me that you give your editors so little credit (this judgment on my part is formed from other postings by you). Editors are very skilled people who bring their own flavor to each project. Hence their own opening title card. Writers don't need to script out their job any more than writers need to script out every step and facial expression for actors. Tell the story, nothing more, nothing less.

I can understand that directors like to have everything down on paper for their shooting scripts (you're certainly not the only one who does). But shooting scripts are VERY different than submission scripts and I caution you against advising new writers towards the former rather than the latter.

And trust your editor. They're good people. There's a reason why directors tend to stick with the same editors throughout their careers.

Hmmm... what a strange thing to hit a nerve on...

Thomas, I apologize if my use of the Michelle-coined term "rule" has been seen as a slight to you. And I'm not undermining your advice to Alexis. This has been a very interesting thread because it started a debate on a seemingly innocuous topic. So I do apologize for any heat that this discussion is creating. Certainly not my intention.

But we're not talking about Alexis' script any more, Thomas. We're discussing whether or not scenes are better ended with dialogue, action, or a mix.

Randy's view comes from a technical stand-point. I just don't happen to agree with the rationale behind it. And while I am not a director, I have worked in post-production.

I'm not certain where your view on the matter comes from. You've been an adamant opponent to screenwriting literature and "rules" of the craft (sorry for use of the "rules" word again, but you know what I mean).

If you look at any selection of screenplays, you'll see that they end scenes with action AND dialogue, almost indiscriminately. They end the scene with whatever ends the scene best.

I'm positive there have been innumerable excellent scripts that always make sure to end on an action. But there have also been innumerable excellent scripts that don't.

I felt I should respond to this,

"Plus, if you are a writer, Walter, I would think you would want as little wiggle room for your vision as possible so no one screws it up."

There are millions of places for wiggle room to slip in. Everyone adds interpretation to a film - actors, directors, set decorators, construction, hair and make-up, editorial, director of photography, etc.

But my story and characters are solid which greatly decreases the chances of my vision getting screwed up. Regardless of whether I end on an action or dialogue.

Thomas,

I agree with Michele. You seem to have internalized something your screenwriting teacher said and it's making you block out all other possibilities. Drew's has multiple drafts of scripts (not just the final polish or the shooting scripts). You'll see similar techniques in all drafts.

I feel I should address something else you said: "I'm not trying to be as pissy as Randy but his first explanation was dead on."

Randy's first explanation was about the post-production side of things. As someone who has worked many years in editorial, I can say that what he said was certainly not "dead on." Granted, I know nothing about being a director in the independent world; I've worked solely in Hollywood. If the styles are different, so be it. I'll stick with the mainstream system and the mainstream doesn't care what your scene ends with as long as it ends well.

I also agree with Michele that Randy seems to have an anger problem. I can't tell if it's a persona he adapts strictly for the forum or not.

I'll wrap up with the famous quote by Mr. Goldman, "Nobody knows anything." That includes myself, Randy, and your screenwriting professor.

I'll admit, I'm at a bit of a loss on this one.

I don't recall ever attacking you personally, Randy. I'm sorry if the internet has given my words a tint that shouldn't be there. This must have been lingering for some time if I have made this MB less enjoyable for a year (in which case, I wish you or someone had mentioned it sooner). My intention has always been to help other writers. If I have failed in that mission while here, please tell me and I will move on.

I agree that this whole dialog/action thing got quickly out of hand, but it was a time where I felt questionable advice was being passed to new writers. So I challenged that advice.

As for provoking you... we seem to have a Rashomon story here. Different stories from different perspectives. You made a statement from your experience in post-production; I responded to that statement from my experience in post-production; you blew up, "I do not live my life to make yours better or grovel to your opinion."

You certainly were provoked, but I do not feel it was I who did it.

Anyway, to close with your line, "I guess you don't have to develop that "tough skin" in Hollywood like the rest of the board." I advise you to listen to your own words. Don't worry about me, my skin is plenty tough. But (and I mean this as gentlemanly as possible), if you're going to continue to be so quick to anger and so eager to be painted as the victim, you'll have a hard time with your new business and your film career.

I've decided to end the hijacking of Alexis' thread.

Thomas,

I've read the 30-some pages of the first script you have posted on moviebytes (Lerner & Loewen). And I have comments. However, I'm reluctant to type up those comments due to the resistance you've shown towards receiving advice. If you want my criticisms, let me know and I will post them.

I will convey one comment though. The following is not an attack. I don't want to seem as though I'm talking from some "mightier than thou" position. I'm posting it here because I feel it's solid advice for all aspiring screenwriters and therefore, it is not "Thomas Swan" specific.

Let me start with a personal vignette about myself. I too was born and raised in a Portland suburb (Go Blazers!). Maybe that's why I like you. When I told friends and family about my screenplays and dreams of becoming a screenwriter, I achieved instant pseudo-fame. Just for having the audacity to want to become a screenwriter, people were impressed. They were equally impressed with the scripts I showed them. Friends would often say things like "I got a great idea for a movie! I'll give you the idea, you write it, and we'll split the money!" or "Yeah, I'll do you this favor, but I get to be your guest when you get your Oscar."

And what can I say, I was prolific. An idea would strike me in the shower and 2 weeks later, I would have a draft done. I considered myself a writer and it would only be a matter of time before Hollywood came knocking.

But then I moved to LA. Suddenly, every other person on the street had a completed screenplay. And guess what? They weren't bad. Everyone down here wrote just as well, if not better than me. Everyone had ideas that were just as fresh if not fresher than mine. I had deluded myself into thinking that I was an inspired genius when in fact I was sub-ordinary.

And that was a tough blow to take. That was my low point where I suddenly no longer considered myself a writer.

But then I also realized that if I wanted to make it, I would have to be better than the thousands of other scripts out there. My ideas needed to be stronger. My characters needed to be people. My scripts needed to flow like dominoes; meticulously crafted, yet beautiful and organic to watch.

As hard as I was working before, I needed to work harder.

And since, my career that was stagnant has gained considerable momentum.

When my manager asks how many scripts I have, I say 3. But in truth, I have 12. 9 of which will never see the light of day again.

I tell you this, Thomas, because after reading your work, I can honestly say that you need to kick it up to the next level. You need to challenge yourself more. You can get there, but you're not there yet. If you don't want to hear this then any comments I have are insignificant.

And this goes for anyone who feels their career is stagnant. If you've been doing this for years, ask yourself if you feel your career is moving forward. Is each script noticeably better than the last? If not, you need to dig deep and bring yourself to the next level.

As I feared, after reading this over, it sounds very condescending. Not my intention at all. I was lucky enough to have learned this lesson on my own, so I'm imparting it on to you.

If your career is not moving, ask yourself, "Is my best not good enough? Or is this not my best?"

I agree with everything Michele said. Actually, her post articulately stated most of what I was planning on saying.

I especially agree with her on making sure all your actions describe things that can be seen or heard. I understand what you're saying, Thomas (giving the actor their backstory or inner thoughts so they know how to approach the scene). But you have to get into the psychology of being a reader. While an actor will take time to figure out their character's motivation, your average studio/production company/agency reader will not. They will zip through it as quickly as possible (much as I'm sure Michele and I did, we weren't reading it for depth), and it will be very annoying for them to stop and think about what's going on when a character "tries to think on his feet but Theodora's presence distracts him." Why write that when you can have him start to speak, then looks Theodora's way and starts fumbling his words. I know it's a tired cliche, but "show, don't tell."

My other notes were more structural in nature. The plot never really gets going. The starting gun for the script is when they lose all their money. But what then? They kind of dance around (and take a break in an awkwardly placed sex fantasy) and don't actually go anywhere. When you pitch to an agent, the conversation will be, "These 4 spoiled sisters find out their dad screwed them out of their inheritance." The agent will then say, "Then what?" The agent/producer/studio is looking for a hook. Not just "they get even" or "they make do." But how they get even or make do. It has to be something intriguing, unique, and something that people want to see. And it has to be woven into the fabric of the story. I didn't see it. There was something about making sex videos, but it seemed more like an excuse to throw nudity into the script than to advance the plot. From what I saw in those 30-something pages, there isn't enough of an idea behind this script. And if there is, then it wasn't introduced within that first third.

Also, upon reading the script, I noticed that there are lots of action lines. It seems that there were never more than 3 lines of dialog before a new action line was inserted. And yet, the script feels short on action. Real action. There's not much movement with a purpose. It's a lot of people step into a room, stand around, talk, look out the window, then maybe throw the papers off the desk. So despite the amount of action lines (which slow down the reading = not good for psychology of reader), there's not much happening.

That's really all I have to say. Michele took the rest.

I'd pitch it to production companies and agents, then whoever bites first will determine your next course of action.

You've probably already done your homework, but when it comes to TV, it's always wise to have a "shape of series" presentation ready to submit. It might be that nobody ever asks for it, but if they do, it never hurts to be prepared.

The presentation will tell them how this idea can be stretched over multiple episodes and multiple seasons. It should contain the overall story-arc for the season, character bios (past, present, and your plans for their future), and a standard episode plot line. Make it interesting. Play your aces. You want them drooling.

It never hurts to have some sample episodes on hand either; an "average" episode is often much different than the pilot (since the pilot is often packed with exposition and character introductions) and having one shows the producer/agent what the "groove" of the show will be.

Of course, when you query them, they may just ask for the pilot script. But it never hurts to have all the other information planned out.

Sarah Marshall is another good example of why you should not write towards the current trends. Last summer, the R-rated romcoms that were male centered (ie "Dick Flicks") were hot. That's all production companies and studios wanted.

Suddenly, the Apatow brand has worn a little thin. Walk Hard was a huge flop. Drillbit Taylor (although not R-rated) underperformed. As has Sarah Marshall.

Did Sarah Marshall make money? Hard to say, after distribution, advertising, and theater costs.

But the point that impacts us writers is that studios are now a little more tentative when it comes to the R-rated comedy.

Meanwhile, Baby Mama ate up the box office this weekend. And "girls night out" comedies were supposed to be dead. Nobody knows anything.

The thing that makes me skeptical is their name - CAA (Creative Artists Awards).

There is a little sentence on their homepage that says they are not affiliated with CAA, Creative Artists Agency. But, come on! They're definitely trying to leech onto the name of the most powerful Hollywood agency. For a moment, I was thinking, "Wow, CAA has a screenwriting competition?" Nope.

Of course it's their right to give themselves whatever name they want. And being called CAA will increases submissions.

Maybe they're being really clever and winning the CAA screenwriting competition will open some doors. But to me, this feels like buying a genuine "Roleks" wrist-watch from a street vendor.

I can't speak for the contest admins, but it could be because those three genres often share one thing in common - they're not set in our "world." Often, these are worlds entirely of the invention of the writer.

There's also a lot of cross-over between the genres. Terminator and Alien are both sci-fi horror movies. The Japanese horror genre are actually fantasy based.

I dunno. I can see what you're saying. If you can skip the contest route, then hellz yeah, go for it! A lot of highly marketable scripts will flounder in contests anyway. Especially since Hollywood is more interested in the idea than the writing. Contests are all about the writing and not so much the idea.

I'm not a contest organizer, but I suspect the answer to be "no, each script must stand on its own."

Otherwise, it gives you a massive advantage or disadvantage (depending on how good the overall writing is).

Advantage - the early scripts will influence the reader on how to view later scripts. While all other writers are confined to telling a story in 90-120 pages, you'd be getting as many as 480 pages. And if they're all read together, it's impossible to judge them individually (hence Return of the King won best picture not so much for its own merit, but as the representative for the entire trilogy).

Disadvantage - Only as strong as its weakest link. With a 480 page story, there's a lot of room for something to go wrong. Your readers are conditioned to be done with a story after 120 pages. Tacking on the extra script may make them resent the entire story.

I doubt you'll be able to do this.

That's great news, Jean! Congratulations!

Any chance you'll give us a peak at the logline?

Ooooh. Sounds like a thriller. Low to mid-budget. Characters with very (as Blake Snyder would say) "primal" needs (need to find son, and need for revenge). Looks like it allows the possibility for complex characters while leaving the door open for plenty of twists and reversals.

Execution is key, but since you got the option, I'd say you probably nailed it.

Very nice!

It's a standard line to say "We don't accept queries." The truth is, if the US Postal Service/internet/fax machines will deliver them, then they will accept them. Someone, somewhere will read what you send (after all, nobody wants to accidentally throw away an important piece of mail).

Most likely, it will make a very short trip to the recycling bin. But if your logline kicks ass, if the company's looking for projects in that vein, if your letter happens to be read by an up-and-coming assistant who wants to bring in business - yep, a lot of "ifs" - you'll get a script request.

Everyone says they don't accept unsolicited material because the moment they do, they get flooded with a sea of crappy screenplays.

But your logline needs to be awesome because it needs to jump out at the assistant/secretary who's simply looking to sort the junk mail from the electric bill.

In order to agree with Paula's statement, I'll revise mine.

Your odds at getting a query read increase drastically when you-

1. Query smaller production companies that may be hungrier and more open for new material.

2. Address the query to an individual.

3. (as always) Have a killer logline that jumps off the page and isn't buried between paragraphs of fluff.

I've never had a query be returned to me unopened, but I've never "gone wide" with a query campaign either. I did recently get a request from a company I queried back in November. What pile was that letter under?

If you're going for an adventure script like Da Vinci Code, there's no better example than Raiders of the Lost Ark.

In most script, Act II (which is where scripts tend to drag) is often divided into 2 parts. From Act I to the midpoint, the good guy is on top - Indy gets closer and closer and finally finds the Ark. But from the midpoint to Act III, the bad guys take over - the Ark is stolen from him and he's sealed in the chamber; he's one step behind the rest of the way.

For a script like yours, the temptation is to put the "big reveal" at the climax. But you'll notice that both Da Vinci and Raiders put a major reveal at the midpoint, giving the story enough momentum to power through until the climax. In Da Vinci, they reveal the whole "Jesus was married" bit. In Raiders, they find the Ark.

A lot of writers try to postpone those moments because they work so well for the climax. But nobody cares by the time it gets to the climax. If you haven't answered the "Why should we care?" question by the midpoint, then your script likely drags. Reveal some secrets.

People underemphasize the midpoint, but it's the moment when the story totally changes - people are no longer racing to find the Ark, they're trying to steal it from each other. If the midpoint doesn't change the story entirely, then it'll likely drag.

The challenge is to have the climax be bigger and better than the midpoint reveal. We see the Ark at the midpoint, but it's the climax that has heads melting and exploding.

"...he has to hire a top notch film marketing company to maximize his chance in Hollywood."

I have no idea what a film marketing company is, although a top notch one would probably be better than a crap hole one.

I know what a studio marketing department is. I also know that there are companies in the business of aiding with the marketing of films (trailer cutting companies, bill-board companies, there are even companies that produce online/youtube featurettes and clips).

I don't see how any of the above will help get a writer's career off the ground, unless of course the writer's career is tied to a movie that has already been produced and needs to be marketed.

I can't say I have much advice for your friend. If he's burnt out and his heart isn't in it, it will show in his writing. He'll only end up wasting more years of his life. I'm more than willing to encourage anyone who has the dream, desire, and effort. But once someone rightly says, "This industry is bullshit. Screw it." Well, they speak the truth and I'm glad they've seen the light and are able to move on with their life. I'm too dumb.

I don't know specific formulas for figuring out exact budgets. The above-the-line talent (actors, directors) are the ones who really push up a film's budget, but as a spec writer, you have no idea who your star is going to be.

Here are some factors that determine where the actual production budget will land.

Cast Size - the more actors, the more people who have to be paid. Not to mention the extra costumes, makeup, etc.

Location - low budget movies have few locations, and they're generally pretty common locations that are all in the same geographical area. Once your crew has to move to Hawaii to film, things get expensive.

Construction - This is kind of a tag-on to locations. Low budget movies have very little construction and rely heavily on pre-existing locations (a diner, a park). Once a production has to rent out stages, things get more spendy. If they have to build an entire Caribbean village or futuristic space-port on that stage, things get really expensive.

Visual Effects/ Special effects/ Stunts/ Pyrotechnics - The more "gags" you have in your script, the more expensive. Car chases, explosions, green screen, people flying, giant robots destroying a city.

I'd say those four areas give a pretty good idea of the below-the-line budget of a movie.

Wow. I would say this thread is a waste of time, but it does seem to be an enhanced lesson of "how not to take criticism."

Also, it goes a long way in clearly establishing Shell's lead for the "My Favorite Person on this Board and One of the Coolest People in the World" award. If you pay a $20 fee, I'll mail you your certificate, Shell.

Anyway, Ben, you previously stated, "I would say I got two "A", tons of "C" and three "F minus""

So now you're of the opinion that the two A's were the readers who "got" your genius, while the tons of C's and three F minus' were all readers who were too jealous or stupid to understand your scripts?

Just to take an exit poll of your results, I would say that you need to up the caliber of your work. I believe you should always take notes with a grain of salt, but you seem to be dumping them in MSG.

You're too quick in saying that the readers need to change the way they read instead of the writer changing the way he writes.

The lesson for all writers who receive negative feedback - DO BETTER. There's always room for better.

You should ask yourself, "If he asked for only the hard copy or only the electronic copy, would I give it to him?" If yes, then there's no problem with giving him both.

Most likely, he's the type of person who only likes to read hard copies, but doesn't want to take the time and money to print them out. He'll want an electronic copy in case he likes it enough to print out more copies or send it around town.

Michele is one of the most knowledgeable, personable, and witty posters on this board. The voice she puts into her everyday posts can teach us all about good writing.

I don't know why an anti-Michele sentiment started with some people. She simply called Ben out, "Hey, who are you? Why are you really here?"

For clarity's sake, I'm going to put this in all caps:

IF MICHELE DOESN'T RETURN, IT WILL BE A HUGE LOSS TO THIS FORUM!!! (ye-ah, I even did the triple exclamation to prove my point)

A lot of people have been throwing around words like "bully" and "cool kids" with regards to Shell. This forum has had "bullies" - people who attack any new poster who asks a simple question. But those "bullies" also did a fantastic job of chasing away posters who had an ulterior motive. They chased away posters/posers who used aliases that Ben has been accused of creating. And Ben has yet to deny that he is the same person who has popped up under different names for years now.

But Shell has not been a bully. She has overwhelmingly been an insightful and supportive poster on this board. I hope her scripts convey her voice because she has amazing writing chops.

So, in support of Shell, I will enter into a silent strike. Solidarity, Michele! I guess a better slogan might be, "No Shell? Go to Hell!" but that seems a bit strong. In any case, until the Return of the Michele-edi, I'm signing off.

I have to disagree with Thomas. You must have a firm grip on what your genre is before your write the script. That's the best way to maintain a clarity of story and tone of the screenplay.

The idea of "let someone else worry about it" is self-defeating because the truth is, if a producer will have to "worry" about it, they'll simply opt to avoid the script entirely. A genre-bender is a tough sell.

Although contests read scripts for their literary and artistic qualities, producers/agents/anyone-who-can-transform-the-script-into-a-movie read with half their mind on marketing. And the only way to market a script is to stand on the shoulders of the movies that came before it. Like it or not, the marketplace will judge your script based on the previous movies in that genre.

It's crucial that you know your genre.

As for the original question, without knowing anything about the script, I'd advise you to go with the thriller because of genre expectations. If people start reading a comedy but then it has moments of tension, part of them will think, "Why am I not laughing? This isn't funny." But on the flip-side, if they start reading a thriller and the tension takes a break for a light-hearted moment, the laughs will come. The audience will appreciate the pause in all the seriousness. The biggest laughs I've heard in theaters usually comes during serious movies rather than comedies.

A light-hearted thriller is much much much easier to pull off than a tense comedy.

With that said, I fully anticipate that after you finish your first draft, you'll have to go in and cut some of your favorite gags because they just aren't adhering to the tone of your script.

That's not quite what I was saying, Thomas.

I'm saying that you need to KNOW your genre first. You don't need to follow every plot point and cliche of your genre. You don't need to write a beat for beat imitation of a successful film in your genre. But you must KNOW your genre. Know the expectations that people will have when they see your genre next to the title (because it will get lumped into a category if you hope to sell it), and know all the significant films in that genre.

Then you can start to improve on it. Play with it. Add your twists, turns, and "wow! I didn't see that coming!" moments.

The balance between writing your heart and writing your marketing mind is a fine one. But you should never write with just one or the other (if you ever want to be produced, that is).

Genre bending is not an industry evil, but you should always know which genre forms the foundation for your script, and that's the original question. SHAUN OF THE DEAD is a great example of a horror-comedy, but at its heart, it's a comedy.It's very clear and very firm on that. That's how it was marketed and I'm sure that's how it was pitched.

My advice to the original poster is to write multiple loglines. Some with comedy themes and some with thriller themes. And then decide which one is actually the stronger idea.

But you gotta know what genre you're starting from. Genre sets the tone. And the tone holds the script together.

We gotta disagree on that one. You don't need to be a slave to your genre, but you must know where you're starting from. And you must have a base of knowledge of all similar movies that preceded yours - all of which have already been classified into different genres.

It also makes the writing and rewriting process easier because it gives the script a clarity of purpose.

Hey Janet,

None of us can answer whether the idea was actually stolen or not. If it'll put your mind at ease, you can retrace every where that logline went and see if any of it matches with the staff at the company. You'll never be able to prove anything though unless they're actually shooting with your script and your words.

But the term "in development" can mean a number of things. They may have bought a script outright. They might have purchased the rights to a book, short story, or a real person's story. Whatever the case, it doesn't necessarily mean that someone read your logline and thought, "Hey, my company can make this movie and my buddy can write it!"

Most likely, this has nothing to do with your script. There are sooooo many ideas floating around out there that there's bound to be LOTS of crossover.

I've experienced a couple instances of that.

I had a high concept romantic comedy that my manager thought was a sure-fire hit. When he took it around town, he discovered that a major studio was already in development with a script that had a similar concept. Totally different story, but the concept had just an ounce of enough similarity to kill any interest in my script. Theirs was just a step on the developmental ladder higher than mine.

I had a similar experience with a TV pilot I was shopping around. There's a movie that will be out next year that has the EXACT SAME title as my project. The font and logo for the movie has a remarkably similar look to the logo I created for my pilot's pitch packet. The story is completely different though.

Another time, I pitched an idea for a comedy. People loved it. I never even got the chance to write it because within a month, a nearly identical concept went into production.

Do I think any of these were stolen from me? No. Judging from how slow things move in Hollywood compared with how long my things were on the market, I just don't think there was a chance for idea theft.

But it does go to show how in our quest for that next great idea, we often tap into the same wave length.

It's defeating and deflating, but it's not the end of the world. Keep churning out scripts and eventually you'll be the one at the head of the pack.

Janet,

There's nothing any of us can say to help. It sucks, plain and simple, when a script idea pops up somewhere else. It's deflating, it's a punch in the gut. Some of us have experienced it (multiple times) and we have empathy. It feels as if an incalculable amount of our energy, effort, and well, our life has been stolen from us. It sucks, sucks, sucks.

And there's nothing we can do. Unless they're using your script with your words and you can prove it, there's no legal action you can take. You don't hold the copyright on all dance-themed love stories.

With that said, and granted I only know what's been posted here, I'm not convinced your idea was outright stolen. It's possible, sure. It's a risk that anyone who sends their work out endures. But from the sound of it, Tex-Mex is simply a story that combines two different dance styles and has thrown in race relations to create a Romeo-Juliet "forbidden love" dimension. After the success of STEP UP and STEP UP 2, I bet people have been trying to combine all sorts of dance moves into love stories.

DIRTY DANCING could also be described as "Romeo and Juliet with dancing."

Same with SAVE THE LAST DANCE. And I think in the 80s, there were a ton of break-dancing movies that dealt with race-relations and clash of cultures.

It is not a given that they stole it, but there are very few people who would know the truth.

In answer to your question, "Should I worry?" there's nothing to be gained by worrying. You can't do anything about it. But you can certainly be pissed. And go ahead and be pissed. Be pissed for several days. Find something to break, people to yell at, and lots of booze to drink. Then sober up and start writing again. Bullshit like this happens.

Yay! Shell's back!

Although she did make a liar out of me. I swore I would be on hiatus until she reemerged, but you guys were just too cool.

If you look at movies like FARGO and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE that claim they are "based on a true story" you'll see that there's not an ounce of truth in them. It's just a marketing ploy. So, no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking history and twisting a story out of it.

You'll run into trouble if you use real people in fake situations. For instance, if Gettysburg is haunted in your story because you say that General Lee personally executed 2000 freed slaves, well... you might have problems. But I'm not a libel lawyer.

A friend of mine started a small business in his bedroom several years ago. The business has grown steadily and now has 5 people on payroll, office space in Hollywood, and several big-time clients.

My friend once said that a business will only become as big as you imagine it. By that, he meant that if he saw himself working out of his bedroom, that's all it'd ever be. But from the start, he treated his business like something bigger and it eventually formed in to what he imagined.

The same is true of screenwriting. Most of these contests, classes, seminars, books and pitch fests aren't geared toward people who actually see themselves as working, successful screenwriters. They're for the people who are dabbling; people who need either quick success or a quick exit. These are the people who are looking for a quick buck and a little fame, but don't want to put in the necessary YEARS of building toward a career.

That's why Patrick's comment "leeches looking to sink their teeth into the desperate" rings true. There are thousands and thousands of people out there who deep down don't believe they can make it as a writer. Instead of real networking (a process that takes years and often pays off with a contact from a friend of a friend of an acquaintance. Real networking always has unexpected results) they go to quick-fire pitch sessions where they meet with nobodies; but it's easy. Instead of submitting to contests with track records of jump-starting careers (and thus risking the very likely rejection), they submit to contests that will give them a meaningless pat on the back in exchange for a $50 entry fee; but it's easy. Instead of writing script after script after script, they take classes and buy books, always rewriting the same story; but it's easy. These writers inevitably quit.

I'm not talking about anyone particular on this board. And I'm not talking about any books/classes/contests/pitch fests in particular. But you have to envision yourself as an actual, legitimate writer. Before shelling out a dime on something, ask yourself, "Does this move me closer to my ultimate goal?" Usually, the answer is "no," it's a side-step or self-validation at best.

Everyone promises easy results for a price. But there are no easy results. Spend your money wisely. For example, for a $30 entry fee, the Nicholl Fellowship is an incredible bang for the buck. Many writers don't enter because they were rejected in years past. Instead, they enter dozens of tiny competitions where they come in third out of a field of 50 scripts. I never understood what they're gaining from that because it sure isn't exposure, contacts, or even a measuring stick of how they compare to the rest of the screenwriting world.

Just about every instruction and guideline to writing loglines includes some variation of the phrase, "Give the reader just a taste and leave them wanting more."

Unfortunately, people use that expression to justify vague loglines written as cliff-hangers. A quick made-up example, "A group of teenagers go camping in the woods, but they soon discover they are not alone..." That logline contains practically no information and won't get many script requests. It reads like the book reviews written by children in the Sunday LA Times, "Harry Potter goes to Hogswarts to discover that something bad is happening. Will he survive? To find out, read the book."

The key to loglines is clarity. Clarity is more important than even brevity. The logline should convey the genre, the tone, who the hero is, why the hero is interesting, what the exact conflict is, and what the hook of the story is.

Instead of thinking of giving your reader "a taste" of the story, give them that juicy picture of the meal that the restaurant puts on their menu. Make them say, "Damn, that steak looks great. I'm having that."

Clarity, clarity, clarity. They need to know exactly what to expect. They need to know what kind of script they're walking into. Cliffhangers and "..." don't create suspense and a desire to unravel the mystery of what the script is about. Instead, it reads like an undeveloped idea. Nobody wants to waste their time reading 100+ pages to see if there's an interesting and marketable story behind the script. They want to find out in 1-2 sentences.

I haven't checked out those postings in awhile, but I recall they were fairly vague to begin with.

Usually, they were something like, "Looking for a feature romantic comedy spec with a 20-something female Latino lead. Low to mid budget."

So, yes, it's pretty specific on the story elements, but it's totally open for the story. I think Janet got it right - they're not sure what they're looking for. But that's true everywhere. If they were exactly sure what they wanted, they could come up with their own logline and contract the work out. Instead, they're sifting.

My advice may seem contradictory, but here it goes.

1. Hustle, hustle, hustle. As you've said, "hit the ground running."

2. Be prepared to wait. Dig your trenches and prepare yourself to camp out for the long term. Hollywood... moves... verrrry... slowwwwwly... (which is surprising because everything is, "I WANT IT YESTERDAY!"). There are a lot of people who move to LA with dreams of finding a job at an agency, working for a month, making contacts, and being "discovered." They expect to have millions in their pocket by the end of the fiscal year. The truth is, even if you do land a job with a mover and shaker, and if he/she agrees to give your script a read, it might be months if ever before they give it a glance.

2a. Networking is a slow and tangential process. It occurs by being friendly and professional to everyone you meet. Never be afraid to admit that you're a screenwriter, but don't go shoving your script in the face of everyone who's anyone. Networking is often a friend of a friend of a coworker.

My advice is to be realistic about how relocating will help your career. Don't get me wrong - it's ESSENTIAL to live in LA if you want to jumpstart a screenwriting career. But LA is not a magic bullet that creates careers by virtue of proximity. It takes time, numerous relationships, and rejection after rejection. A lot of people say, "Okay, I've set aside 6 months of my life to move to LA and start my career in writing/acting/directing." People believe this town is all about "win big or go home." It's much more incremental than that. And amid the baby-steps forward are dozens of baby steps back. Be prepared for that, be committed to keep up the fight, and you'll have a good shot.

We've all heard the saying, "If you show a gun in Act I, it had better be fired in Act III." It's very similar for race introductions. If you make a point of saying a character's race, it will sometimes be implied that the race plays a purpose in the story. If this isn't the case, it's probably best left to the casting director. Many movies like to have a multi-ethnic cast anyway, so they'll go out of their way to add diversity (as long as the actors fit the movie).

A subtle way you can inject race into your script is just with names. If your character is named Maria Hernandez, well, we can assume she's Latina. A girl named Mariko is probably Asian. Carl Robinson is probably black. If the reader doesn't mentally attach a race, no big deal.

Hey Jonathan,

When you wrote that you have "sent a lot of emails inquiring about how to submit a script but I haven't gotten one email back in over a week" are you asking them if you can submit your script, or are you sending them a logline.

Because a query is all about the logline. The shorter the query, the better. All they really care about is the logline.

When a company's stance is "no unsolicited material" there might be the unwritten addition "... unless the logline is f-ing amazing. Then I might take a peek." In general, it never hurts to try. Most likely, silence will be your answer. Oh well.

The way the interaction usually works is you shoot them a logline. If they're interested, they'll reply "sounds interesting. Send me a pdf." You hear nothing for several weeks. After some nagging, they send you the email that says "it was well-written, but it's just not for us. Good luck!" You say "thank you" and move on.

On rare occasion, they'll like it and want to see what else you have. Or they'll want to meet and discuss your future plans. Yay!

My advice is to compile your list of targets (the Big 5 agencies will not respond, you can try anyway, but don't hold your breath. When they say "no unsolicited material" they generally mean it). Then start sending out queries a handful at a time. 1 in 10 script requests seems like a decent bench mark. If you're not hitting that, rework your logline. Maybe delete all that excess info about how the script was written based on personal experience. And try again with a new batch.

The nice thing about e-queries is that there isn't much stress or waiting. If they don't reply within the hour, you're not likely to get a reply. If you don't hear anything by the end of the day or the week, your chances are really dim. But what's also nice is that such rejection doesn't mean anything. Your email might have popped up on their blackberry while they were in a meeting and they hit delete without even reading it. Retool and try again.

The key to the query is the logline. The logline is how Hollywood screens through the millions of screenplays out there to select the lucky ten thousand or so that will be read.

I just realized that I addressed that last post to Jonathan, but it was meant to be a universal post.

The logline needs more concrete details in order to hook the reader. It's very guarded and vague, and therefore I don't know what the actual plot is, what the tone is, or why we should care about the characters.

Many movies have "old demons" resurface. So we need to hear why these particular old demons are new and interesting.

Also, what is this professional battle and how is it waged? This could be a drama, slap-stick comedy, romantic comedy, movie-of-the-week, etc.

The logline needs more details so that, if I was the reader, I would say, "I can see that. Nice idea."

The idea has potential, but it needs a solid underlying story holding it together. Otherwise, it sounds like humor derived from the shock value of masturbation, which is funny for bits in movies (Something About Mary) but can't carry 90 minutes. And the "underdog/Rocky Balboa" angle isn't any more than an excuse to enter into this premise. A story is still needed.

With that said, I don't know if this is for Apatow (who is nearly impossible to pitch to anyway since he has surrounded himself with writers who keep churning out scripts). Apatow movies have a certain amount of heart in them, and then a penis or two and some explicit conversations about sex are thrown in on top of it. But KNOCKED UP and 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN, at their core, are not raunchy premises. None of his films are. They just drape them in raunch to bring in the male audiences.

Well done, Jean! The fact that this board has been flooded by congratulatory posters should prove how much you deserve this. Now maybe there will be room in competitions for scripts that aren't title SERENA'S THUNDER to win.

Worst case scenario? You pop the $20 to reregister the script, which ain't too bad of a price.

But I seriously doubt WGA won't give you the number if you have your driver's license number.

You got it right with the "blank meets blank" story pitch. The only pit-fall people have is that they inevitably fuse two movies, and it's therefore impossible to visualize. "Star Wars meets Sound of Music." Is Vader singing before he gets drafted into the Imperial Fleet?

The trick is to take one movie ("more of the same...") and then find a new setting, theme, antagonist to place around it ("...only different"). So, if you were to write, "An action/adventure in the tone of STAR WARS set in Nazi Europe" then people would be able to visualize the story. Follow that up with a gripping logline and you might get some interest.

Many of the best ideas were pitched like this. ALIEN = JAWS in space.

I feel the problem is that your logline just doesn't have enough spice in it. I'm sure your script is strong on characters, but the unfortunate truth is that the people who are looking for family animation films aren't necessarily looking for "character driven." That means you'll need to find the hook in the story and bring it to the forefront.

As it stands, your logline conjures up too many similarities to other stories. The feuding cat and dog are characters that are almost too familiar, with Garfield/Odie, Bucky/Satchel (from the comic strip Get Fuzzy), etc. The story that you've presented feels similar to HOMEWARD BOUND and TOY STORY.

The logline needs to contain more to differentiate it or else it runs the risk of "been done."

You have to find something else besides "Defazin Regenerator." Nobody will have any base of knowledge on what that is or why they should care. Fantasy titles often use terms we're familiar with. I don't think THE GOLDEN COMPASS even uses the term "golden compass" in the movie, but we can visualize what it is based on the title. I can guess what a starfighter is in THE LAST STARFIGHTER. But I have no concept of what a defazin is and why they're/it's regenerating.

Hi Jonathon,

Your new logline suffers from the same problems. You haven't gotten in there and told us what happens in this story. All we know is that a cat and dog have to journey a long ways home, and after reading the logline, I'm thinking, "Hey, I already saw this. It's called HOMEWARD BOUND." You'll be fighting that comparison the whole way. Your logline must show us that this is not HOMEWARD BOUND.

The complexity of your characters is certainly a great benefit to the script. But when people read animated family adventures, they're not looking for deep characters (although it's a great plus), they're initially looking for a fun story that kids will see. Your logline needs to show that this is a fun story. And that it hasn't been done before.

Hey Ron,

You can stand on the backs of successful movies and pitch a script as "HOMEWARD BOUND in the Jurassic Era" or something, and a few eyebrows might be raised. The problem with Jonathon's logline is that it's not "HOMEWARD BOUND meets ______," it's simply HOMEWARD BOUND.

There's a good chance that this is just a logline problem. Jonathon's challenge is to either play off the success of HOMEWARD BOUND or pull the concept away from it. But as the logline reads now, it's walking the exact same ground as a previous movie, and that's a problem.

Hi Jonathon,

Your script might be radically different than HOMEWARD BOUND and TOY STORY and all sorts of other scripts, but your logline has to show it. It's not enough to put a parenthetical (ps. This is NOT HOMEWARD BOUND).

It's the challenge you face. But then again, loglines are never easy anyway.

Here's my advice:

1. Narrow down your 15 scripts to the strongest one or two. Focus your energies on those because trying to pitch 15 will spread yourself way too thin. Saying that you've written 15 also won't impress many readers because it leaves them thinking, "Well, why hasn't he sold anything yet?" Also, there are many writers who can rattle off a script in 2 weeks, but never get better from script to script. You don't want to be considered one of those. Pick your top two to pitch and then your top five in case someone asks "What else you got?"

2. Do an aggressive query and cold calling campaign this summer. Then you'll be able to meet up for lunch or something when you're in town.

3. Remember that "networking" isn't a magic bullet. It's not very common to walk into a bar, strike up a conversation, and walk out with representation. Networking is always "a friend of a coworker of a friend said you were looking for an action thriller. It just so happens that I recently finished one..." It always follows a strange and unexpected road. The point is to be nice and professional to EVERYONE. Strike up some REAL conversations and not just conversations where you look for a segue into your pitch. Make some friends.

I can't say I'm terribly surprised. I've always heard that the TV program was successful in finding new talent and integrating them onto show staffs, but the Feature program never met with the same success. The Feature program just never figured out a way to incorporate these writers into Disney.

Also add in the fact that the original intent of the fellowship was to promote diversity in Disney's writing force. I'm not going to debate whether or not diversity is still an unresolved issue, but it's not a politically "hot" issue right now, and really hasn't been since the 90s. The program had inched away from it's diversity mission over the past several years anyway.

Ultimately, Disney probably figured that it's cheaper to find new talented feature writers the old way - have agents and producers submit scripts. It's also relatively free (not counting reader salaries). Why pay $50,000 per writer on top of contest admin fees when you can get the same script submitted to you, filtered through the system, and (hopefully) improved by notes for free?

I have to be honest, this logline will be an uphill battle. You got the "recommend" which is significant, so obviously you have a great story there. The problem is that the logline is bogged down with cliches. In dramas, hitmen often have occupational angst. What brings that angst to a tipping point is when they're given the assignment of killing someone they do not want dead.

Unfortunately, the angst and the unwanted hit are the two elements of your story that are being conveyed in the logline. You need to step back and look at what makes your story different. Personally, I was intrigued by the fact that he's widowed and trying to come to peace with his in-laws. It shows that there's an emotional heart to the story.

If you're looking for a logline formula, I've had success with:

"When an inciting incident occurs, an interesting character struggles to fix it in an inventive way, but then the midpoint twist happens."

Just fill in the blanks.

I guess one problem I have with the trial loglines is that they don't really show me how this idea can fill 100 pages. A good logline should make the reader start thinking, "Great idea! There could be a scene of_______."

And I think that's why some of us thought this idea might be a comedy, because we can envision scenes of a hitman trying to appease his inlaws, but then having to kill them. It's MEET THE PARENTS meets WANTED. And that would be funny.

But with these loglines, all I can see is 100 pages of a guy moping around and trying to make a decision. Not very enticing. It doesn't seem like the father-in-law will put up much of a fight so I can't even envision an action sequence.

I know I'm not helping, but these are just things you need to consider with your logline. None of the loglines listed give me the necessary information I need to imagine where this movie goes.

By the way, I don't believe for a second that anyone is "bad at loglines." It's all about effort and trial-and-error.

It's like learning names. Everyone says, "I'm bad with names" but the truth is that anyone can be good with names if they really tried.

A lot of Hollywood directors still like 35 because its "look" still can't be recreated digitally, even with lenses and filters.

But 35 is MUCH more expensive. And the expense continues throughout production and post-production. Here's the path 35 mm takes from the camera to the screen:

1. Developed at a cost-per-foot. 2. Telecined into a digital format for the AVID editing software to use. 3. The digital file is edited and the key numbers are sent back to the transfer house. 4. Using the editor's cut, the original negative is scanned again at higher resolution to create a Digital Intermediate (DI). 5. The DI is then used for color correction. VFX, which have also been converted to digital files, are then dropped in. 6. The DI is "filmed out" back onto 35mm for distribution purposes.

As you can see, most of the post-production process works with digital files. Each one of those steps requires significant money. Why not just use digital from the beginning?

Definitely include his age. In fact, drum up that fact that it's an old man who's committing crimes. That's your hook, it's interesting, and it's different.

But "armed robbery" is too blah of a term. Is he robbing banks? Companies? People? All give the story a very different tone.

And then there's the problem that an old man hopping over a bank counter with a gun is more comedic than dramatic. Personally, I like this concept as a comedy better. But that's just judging from your original logline.

If you must genre hop, at least try not to "audience hop." By that I mean that your readers are audiences too and certain audiences like certain genres. If a rep says, "I like your horror. What else you got?" you could probably send them a thriller or even a sex-comedy because people who like horrors tend to like those movies as well. But if you follow up your horror with a romcom, you'll hear, "Sorry, this isn't for me."

I've met several people in this town who just don't like certain genres and therefore they don't want to work with them.

And don't forget that agents/managers build up connections at production companies. And most production companies are very genre specific. Castlerock doesn't do slasher films and Dark Castle doesn't do romcoms.

Scam. Total scam.

Your instincts were dead-on to walk away. They would have lost interest real fast if you said, "Why, yes. I do know a line producer."

You're better off signing up for IMDBpro and Moviebyte's Who's Buying What (you can get free trials of both). Then, set aside an entire weekend to create a long list of prospective managers, agents, and producers who you want to approach with your script. Who's Buying What will tell you what reps have had recent success with scripts similar to yours. IMDBpro will tell you who reps whom and will often give you an email address or at least the company email structure.

Then, instead of blasting queries to everyone in town, send out a small batch. Maybe 5 at a time. If you get zero response, change your logline. Change your query. Change your subject heading. Keep tweeking and tweeking until you've crafted something that people want to read. Keep a spreadsheet of whom you've queried, what day you queried, and if there was a response (usually, you'll hear silence).

With regards to e-queries, if they're going to respond, it will likely happen in the first hour after you've sent it. So there's no need to wait on pins and needles for a month.

This gives you a targeted approach that allows for you to alter your pitch. E-blasting people will cost money and I have yet to hear of a success story with it.

Of course, the way I just described takes a LOT of time and preparation. But that's the name of the game. And still, you'll hear mostly silence.

I'm having trouble getting the tone of the story. It seems that our mild-mannered, homicidal accountant is the hero. After all, it's not just a detective who's after him, it's a "crooked" detective.

The entire logline is written in a way that makes it feel as if we should root for the accountant (he's mild-mannered, he's pulled off an ingenious plan, he's getting haunted, he's getting chased by a crooked detective). But we're never told WHY we should root for the killer. You say it's a "comedy thriller" (and you have to ask yourself if that's different than "dark comedy"), but the logline doesn't convey the comedic side of the story.

Ultimately, I think we need two things:

1. WHY are we rooting for a guy who murders his wife? 2. What is the wife's ghost specifically doing to him? (this is your hook, by the way)

It all depends on what kind of script you have. Inktip is the place to go for simple, well-written stories that can be made on the cheap. The producers who lurk there are looking for the next JUNO, MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING, or GRAN TORINO.

But the doors of Hollywood ARE always open to new writers (they just have a ton of bouncers). Many new writers break directly into Hollywood with big action pieces, high concept comedies, or new twists on the horror genre. But it would be very difficult to get into Hollywood with a GRAN TORINO.

The worst case scenario is if you have a simple, character piece with a massive budget. And remember, budget is usually determined by number of locations, cast size, and VFX.

With regards to the "Save the Cat" moment, it comes at the very beginning when we're first introduced to him.

It opens at a funeral for his wife, so we already feel empathy for the man. And then, we watch as he sees his grandchildren walk into the church and one-by-one act disrespectfully (by what they're wearing and how they act).

So what we see is an old man experiencing great loss while his family doesn't care. In fact, he's the only person who's treating the occasion with the respect it deserves.

We soon see that he's not bashful about voicing his displeasure. Good for him; everyone likes characters who say what they think.

We now root for him.

THEN we find out he's a racist. But we're already on his side for the ride.

Your logline needs to tell us what the actual story is. What are these people going to be doing? What do they want? We need the real basics of what your story is. There's nothing I can visualize with what you've told us.

Hey Dan,

I've never used Barb's service so I can't attest to the quality of her work. Likewise, I've never read one of her scripts so I can't say anything about her skills as a writer.

But I feel you're making a mistake if you base your contacts on whether or not they're on the WGA signatory agency list (the link you posted in reply to Patrick). For starters, Barb's company is not an agency so it wouldn't be on the list anyway. And neither are the top "management" firms in Hollywood. Benderspink isn't a WGA company despite an enormous load of script sales. Same with Management 360, Anonymous Content, and many others.

Again, I've never used her service, but Barb's pricing is well below industry standards. I think that's why she's so popular. For $75 can you get what other analysts will give you for $500? Probably not, but everyone on this board who has used Barb considers her notes a value for the price.

From my experience, the level of a writer's personal success does not correlate to the quality of their notes.

The only way we can really advise you is if you give us the company name. Some people use them, some people don't.

I will say that, in answer to your actual question "Are they always required?" no. There are many, many biggies who don't require them because, ultimately, they don't mean much legally. In fact, often the bigger the agency and the higher the price of their in-house or retained attorneys, the less they use documents like this.

The biggest mistake I ever made was listening to the old writer's mantra: Allow yourself to write crap.

In theory, it's a great idea; just turn off your internal editor and let the ideas flow, thus allowing discovery along the way. Sit down, get in a zone, and let the words flow.

In practice, if you allow yourself to write crap, you end up with... crap. And once you get a first draft of crap, there are only two options. 1) Do a Page 1 rewrite, or 2) Try to polish a turd.

Most writers spend years dealing with the second option and that's why there are countless well-groomed turds in this town. Other writer's elect to do the Page 1 rewrite, but again allow themselves to write crap. They end up with a crappy second draft.

The solution is to hold yourself to a higher standard. Make your first draft the best draft possible. At the very least, fully outline your story structure and plotpoints before you ever begin writing. There's still plenty of discovery to be had. But NEVER address inherent problems with your story or characters by saying, "I'll work it out when I write it."

The outline phase is where you solve EVERY problem you can possibly anticipate. Don't sell it short. There will be plenty of problems you'll encounter when you actually write the damn thing.

In short, the greatest mistakes writer's (self-included) do is to not hold themselves to a higher standard. Allowing yourself to write crap is lazy rationalization.

Oooh! Oooh! Do me next!

On the flip side of the argument, there are too many writers who think that relocating to LA is all they need in order to break in. They set aside 6 months or a year of their life to move to LA and "network" and "make connections" and "get their script out there." It rarely works that quickly or easily.

If you want a career as a screenwriter, LA is the place to be, but you need to commit yourself to living here for many years, perhaps indefinitely. And ALWAYS continue to improve your writing.

Janet,

Bearing in mind that I haven't read your script or your coverage, there might be truth to what the coverage is saying.

You should examine if there are consistencies to what people are replying to.

From the coverage I've read and received, readers tend to respond most rudely or sarcastically when they encounter logical gaps in either the plot or character. It's like when you watch a horror movie and turn to your buddy and say, "Yeah, splitting up in the woods is a GREAT plan."

Readers encounter cliches and forced plots all the time, and naturally react to them with a sense of their own perceived wit.

Again, I haven't read your script or your coverage, but from my experience readers like to put their own sarcastic spin on coverage as, maybe, an attempt to show how ludicrous certain plot points are.

Janet,

Those reader comments you posted are rude, not very helpful, but very honest. These people didn't like your script. It's true that reading is incredibly subjective, but if you are consistently getting that kind of feedback, you need to reevaluate your scripts.

I agree with Martin. You should set the dance musicals aside. Go to work on other concepts, other genres. Keep learning and keep writing new stuff, instead of spending all your time and money on these two scripts that apparently are not making headway with readers.

Many would-be screenwriters languish in their first few scripts, trying to perfect them. Instead of that, use the early scripts as learning experiences and stepping stones.

When in doubt, trust your gut. Sure, there are plenty of small-time agencies and production companies who will promise the world and then be unable to deliver. Those companies are mostly harmless, except for the amount of time they tie up your material.

But when you start reading bad reviews of companies, and hear words like "scam," it's time to run away.

Here's the rule of thumb:

A REAL ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY WILL NEVER NEVER NEVER ASK FOR MONEY.

As soon as you hear words like, "Reading fees" or "We can only accept submissions that have received coverage from _______" it's a scam. These people can do nothing for your career.

Hey Cheryl,

You don't have anything to worry about except maybe they'll hassle you to seek out one of their 3rd party critiques - for a price. They may target you as someone they can squeeze money from. Otherwise, your script will be deleted or ignored.

But the fact remains that these people will not help your career.

Hey Stephen,

Abstract is a relatively new, start-up management company. Both Mike and Josh are nice guys and have a lot of hustle. For such a small, young company, they've had an excellent track record of sales these past few years.

They seem to be open to most genres.

I view them as a young Benderspink.

With regards to Cheryl's question and the general conversation about WGA registration, scripts are never "safe." The burden is always on the original writer to prove his/her script was stolen and they're only successful when the plagiarized property contains character names or exact lines of dialogue from the original copywrited material.

With that in mind, it's always best to not blast your scripts and ideas around town, hoping something will stick. Deal with the respected companies who have a recent track record.

I can't tell you how many times writers will query a company, send in their work, and THEN ask "Does anyone know anything about _______? Are they legit?" Ugh.

Submitting your work is like driving a car. You should maintain your car, wear a seatbelt, buy insurance, and drive carefully. But there's no way to guarantee that some asshole won't smack into you anyway.

I don't really see what the problem is. 7 of 9 writers getting representation off the bat is a GREAT record. Everyone's always saying that they enter contests to gain exposure and hopefully representation, well, here you go. Trackingb served as a filter.

A great script is a great script no matter what legal hoops people need to jump through down the road.

But, yes, too many legal hoops will scare away some producers (especially the smaller ones). I heard a pitch for an script where EVERY horror character pops up in the real world and starts killing people. Everyone laughed at the writer because it was too much of a legal nightmare. Frankly, I'm impressed that a movie like WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT ever got made. Imagine the contracts that were written for that one.

With that said, I'd be very thoughtful in your approach and if the situation calls for it, use what you need and let the studio clearance department sort it out.

I heard of a recent sale of a Pinocchio sequel that was written on spec (I think. I forgot the details).

I didn't see if anyone else mentioned it, but the main thing Final Draft has going for it is the fact that it's THE industry standard software. By that I mean if you go into any production company, agency, or studio, they'll have FD installed on their computers.

I also know managers who like to have their clients email them scripts in FD format so they can add notes directly to the scripts in the note boxes.

As far as ease of writing, one program is as good as another. But most of Hollywood doesn't even realize there are other programs out there other than Final Draft.

Yes. Take 2010 off. Don't even limit yourself to one year, take an indefinite vacation.

One of two things will happen then:

1. You'll feel as though a weight has been lifted from your life. You won't constantly be stressing about your career let alone your characters and plot structure. Whenever I go on vacation and tell myself "I'm not going to think about screenwriting this week" I sleep better. You'll be able to focus on jobs that bring in legitimate, stable incomes.

or

2. You'll find you can't stay away for a year and you'll start writing again anyway.

I'm not laying these out as some sort of "Are you a true writer" test. I think there are a lot of people on forums like this and in this town in general who would be not only better off, but happier, if they moved on. They gave it their shot (unlike most people), but weren't lucky enough to hit the lottery. No shame at all.

I honestly encourage you and everyone who has doubts to take some time off and truly reevaluate.

You're absolutely correct. My apologies.

Ha! I can't believe his example of a great script that will have people falling all over themselves is AMADEUS. I love AMADEUS, and it's a fantastic script, but it's an atrocious example to use.

1. It's based on an award winning play. This is the top reason why it was discovered and made into a movie. So, screenwriters, go write a play, get it on Broadway, win a bunch of awards, and then BAM! you got yourself a chance to get repped in Hollywood.

2. It's a period, costume piece. Sure, it doesn't have big VFX, but a movie like this is EXPENSIVE.

3. Competing composers is not exactly an easy sell to the masses. If it's not an easy sell, people won't be jumping out of their seats to rep you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to not write movies like AMADEUS (which, again, is amazing). I just find it hilarious that out of the thousands of movies out there, this guy used such a movie as the example of a script where "people will fall over themselves trying to rep and sell you."

I haven't read the book referenced, but there shouldn't be any negative spin on your situation. The only real negative you discovered is one you should have already known - you're not a high priority at this company. A script with a red CAA cover wouldn't "slip between the cracks." But that's the nature of the biz and you knew that before ever contacting them.

When you don't hear anything, it either means they haven't read it, or they read it and didn't like it. Under no circumstances would they reply to you saying "We haven't read it" when in fact they've read it and didn't like it.

So you now know where you stand. They haven't read it yet, they might not read it for awhile, but they don't hate it and you (yet).

Dagnab! I wrote a rant and it vanished.

Well, the main point of the missing post is that I think George's sentiment is dead on. I'll bullet-point it because I don't want to type it again.

1. The vast majority of contests will do nothing for a writer's career. 2. The contest circuit can be a trap. A passive way for success to hopefully fall into your lap. 3. Many writers, when encountering failure at the hands of the industry or even Nicholl, instead of working on their craft and pitch, will enter lower and more meaningless contests to obtain their validation. (think of all the contests where 1/4 of entries make it to the QFs) 4. Contests also make writers constantly defer their putting real effort into their career. "I'll wait until the _____ results come out." 5. Contests, although often useful as a measuring stick, can provide a false measuring stick. "There's nothing wrong with this script! It was a ______ finalist!"

But contests also have their uses, as many have already pointed out. But come on people, most of these arguments with George are defensive more than anything. He has a VERY valid point. Everyone needs to constantly reevaluate their own career strategy and if contests are at the top of that strategy list, you're in trouble.

With the word "networking" being thrown around so much, I want to be clear that networking is also not a magic bullet. Too many people think that networking involves walking into a club in Hollywood, meeting some people, and BAM you've made a sale. Networking is a slooooow process that may or may not yield results. And when it does, it often happens in the most unexpected ways. So don't think, "Okay, I'm going to move to LA for 6 months to get my career started and then I can move home to write." Nope. If you move to LA, you have to commit to staying here awhile.

And here's the most important note on networking: NETWORKING IS USELESS IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE SCRIPT TO BACK IT UP.

I'm going to do what Irin did; here are the leads I have/had going-

1. Contest: Nicholl semifinalist a couple years ago. This got me my first manager. They promised the world, but didn't come close to delivering. I left them when I developed more momentum on my own with genres they weren't interested in. Nice guys, but I've never looked back. This particular script

2. Networking: I kept in touch with an old coworker who had started a new job as a producer's assistant. She became friends with another producer in the same building who worked on scripts in my genre. She passed him my script. 6 months later, I get a call from him. He finally read it, loved it, and optioned it. It's out to buyers right now, although I'm not holding out much hope because the Christmas hiatus killed our momentum and the specific genre has not fared well lately.

3. Cold query: I'm in a kinda/sorta hip-pocket by an agent off a total cold query. He liked the script, but isn't sure on the marketability. He asked how we had connected and he couldn't believe it when I told him it was a cold query.

4. Networking/alumni connection: Cold called a producer who went to the same college as me. I used that little fact to get him to read my work. His company considered buying and producing two of the scripts, but ultimately decided against it. I'm up for assignment work there though.

5. Networking/ cold query: There's a producer who's a friend of a friend of a friend. I know that producer has a personal interest in the topic of one of my scripts so I used that flimsy connection to contact him. We chatted, he requested the script, haven't heard anything since. Either it's a pass or he hasn't read it.

So it's Contests - 1, Networking - 4. There are several smaller leads and referrals that have come from networking too.

Nice Steven.

I invite everyone to list off their leads, where they came from, and what the results have been. This could become the most useful and enlightening thread ever.

I don't know why everyone's jumping on Martin. Reader fatigue is a reality in the contest world and in the general script submission world. You're ALWAYS at the mercy of the reader. If they're too busy to read your script (and especially if they're not expected to write much coverage or feedback), there's very little to stop them from skimming the first and last ten pages and "dialing down the center" on the scorecards. If anyone asks, they can easily say something about "The pacing was a little slow" or "It felt kinda talky" or "the characters were too cardboard."

So reader fatigue is real. I don't doubt that reader fatigue sets in at the end of competitions when a reader has a stack of 50 scripts and has been reading 10 a day for the past month.

I don't have any firsthand knowledge since I've never worked a competition, but I do know people who have.

With that said, all-in-all, there's a certain amount of crap-shoot to the whole thing. And generally, the good scripts rise to the top anyway.

All you can do is research the company, and if they're reputable, go ahead and sign.

I've worked in a big name production company and I've glanced at the queries and submissions. So many ideas are the same. "An over-the-hill ________ has to come out of retirement to _________, but he ends up competing against his old nemesis _________." Ugh. That's a pretty standard logline that people consider high-concept, but think of how many people have filled that first blank with something random, like oh, "Olympic Curler." I'm willing to bet that there are over 50 scripts about an over-the-hill curler.

That production company was forced to deny all unsolicited submissions because if they make a movie about a retired curler, and someone at sometime submitted a script about a retired curler, there's a lawsuit and lawyer's fees.

This is really sad.

The moviebytes forum is a small, secluded place, and yet Steve injected so much fun, energy and intellect into it. I can only imagine the impact he had on those closest to him.

It's especially sad because his writing career was gaining so much well-deserved momentum.

You will be missed, Steve.

-Tom

Wait, really, people?! You think that reviewer was worried about offending Nazis? Maybe I'm being the victim of an April Fools joke now, or I'm just naive and everyone here is speaking tongue-in-cheek.

The reviewer is worried about offending Jews (who have a very significant role in Hollywood). He/she is being overly PC and is worried that any comedic use of such a vile man will make light of the Holocaust and be offensive.

And the reviewer is off-base. Don't listen to that note. The joke, as you describe, is less effective if you have Ghengis Khan in the basement.

I'm with James here. Robert, you have to use your own judgment on this. Maybe there's something else offensive in the gag, like an implication that the Holocaust is made up, or something. But there is nothing inherently wrong with putting Hitler as a joke in a dark comedy. From what you've told us, your reader doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

Of course I, like everyone else, haven't read it. Maybe the joke just falls flat for reasons other than the Fuhrer.

Cold calling is hit and miss. I know of several people who swear by it.

At the same time, being on the other end of the line, I advise you to be VERY brief about it. So many people have heard the advice, "Once you get someone on the line, keep them talking. Make an impression. Show you're passionate about the project. Get some names of people to send it to. And DON'T TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER."

Ugh! When I say "Our development slate is full" I'm politely saying "Pass. Please let me get back to my job." My answer is "no" now and it will continue to be "no" five minutes from now.

If you cold-call, be ready to move on quickly. Otherwise, you are VERY annoying.

I don't want to be a nay-sayer because an opportunity is an opportunity. Also, I don't know these guys, their history, their work ethic, or their general vibe so I'm in no position to judge, other than by what you posted. This decision will have to be made by your gut.

Here are a few red flags-

1. Not in California. This definitely isn't a non-starter, there are lots of great companies out there and lots of bad companies here in LA. But it does throw into question the resources and experience these guys have when it comes to movie making. Again, this is for you to judge.

2. They want to make a pilot... and a feature? And they like both of yours? I dunno... this seems like a lack of focus. When companies don't have focus or an exact plan, they tend to get nothing done. I haven't read your work, but the fact that they're chomping at the bit for two very different projects from the same writer says to me that they haven't accessed much material. Again, it makes me question their resources and knowledge.

3. They can't offer you a standard option agreement? I'm surprised they didn't even try a $1 option or something. The way they've gone about this sends up more flags that these guys don't know what they're doing when it comes to making movies.

4. They offered you a producer/partner role. I don't know what they mean by "partner." Partner in the company? This is a very strange offer and one that is rarely made to unproduced, unrepped writers. If they're throwing titles around like candy, then the titles become meaningless.

Again, I don't know these guys. I haven't interacted with them. They may be legit and full of hustle. It might be a great chance to get your work produced. But the way they've gone about securing your material makes me concerned.

I, for one, am against asking for $100. Anytime money changes hands, you lose control. Depending on the wording of the contract, they could potentially tie up your material indefinitely (which is why an ent. attorney is valuable). The purpose of asking for money is to gauge their intentions and keep them motivated. $100 is nothing and they can easily walk away from such a loss.

But, like it or not, unpaid options are becoming more and more the norm.

The main question you need to ask is if you want to do business with these people. Even if these projects never get made (which is the most likely outcome), will your career be further along at the end of this experience than now? Or will you have wasted a year and gained nothing?

The most important thing is for you to have the ability to regain control of your scripts after a set period of time (no longer than a year). Don't fall for any "if the producers are, in good faith, trying to set up the project, they regain control... (indefinitely)" verbiage.

Also, as for an entertainment attorney, they won't work on a percentage if there's no money on the table (5% of nothing ain't a good deal). So, you might be looking at a couple grand in fees, which sucks, I know.

I don't know how to advise you. That's a lot of money, and there are no guarantees.

I agree with everything Andrew said except:

"Also, good entertainment lawyers charge on percentage. Five for standard work ten if they're negotiating for you like an agent would. Like an agent, don't pay anything up front! Even if it's a small amount of commission, if they're good and believe in you they'll take the job in order to develop a relationship."

Hey, it never hurts to call around and ask, but I wouldn't get your hopes up to find this kind of deal. At least not with a "good" lawyer. From the sounds of it, there's no money on the table, so they won't get a percentage of anything to simply look over the contract these producers hand you. If money does get involved, I doubt you'll be able to get more than $3000; 5% of that nets the lawyer $150. They'll want more than that to just read the contract. They won't take a percentage of a backend deal because with small-time producers like this, the odds are that backend will never come. Essentially, this is asking them to work for free.

Like any lawyer or business man, they'll run the numbers and decide what can net them the most money. If you had a possible deal with a major studio, yeah, they'd do a percentage and be your best friend. On a project like this, there's a good chance they'll never hear from you again (no offense, it's just kinda how the odds work in this town), so they'll try to get as much out of you as they can right now.

But again, it never hurts to shop around and ask. If you can pitch yourself well, you may convince them that a relationship with you will be very lucrative in the future.

If feel this thread and the one preceding it has its heart in the right place; you SHOULD NOT enter any competition that doesn't offer the opportunity to advance your screenwriting career. The majority of contests are a waste - Placement means nothing except validation of your skills against mediocre competition. And that's how the industry sees them.

But what's troubling about these threads is the unstated (I'll admit, maybe I'm picking up on something that's not there) fact that many people are pinning their career hopes on contest outcomes. For all but 1 in 3000 writers, that's a losing strategy.

Yes, this is a website devoted to competitions. In reality, however, it is a website for aspiring screenwriters.

"Walter, if someone has a really good script but they dont ever get read then what is that?"

1. A poor job of self-promotion. 2. A poor concept. 3. A poor script that they only think is a good script.

Use Facebook like a resume or a business card. When you meet someone in the business and you click, then look them up on Facebook and maybe start a dialogue there.

Facebook and other sites aren't a magic bullet to getting scripts out there (nothing is). It is what it is - a social networking tool.

As someone who works on the other end of the process (ie. reading queries), my advice is to ignore everything the blogs, books, and articles say about the format. The most effective queries are:

Dear ______,

I recently completed a (genre) that might be of interest to you.

Title:_______

Genre:(be specific, but don't lie. Meaning, if it's a horror, don't call it an "action-thriller" because you heard those are more popular)

Logline:(keep it short, but don't sacrifice clarity for the sake of length. Too many people try to adhere to the "one-sentence rule" by splicing three sentences together with commas. The result is an incomprehensible mess. Ultimately, this logline is your make or break.)

I graduated from the UCLA Screenwriting Program and have made the semi-finals of the Nicholl Fellowship. (Only include bio tidbits that are SIGNIFICANT. Nobody cares if you placed in a no-name contest or if you took a class at some school in Iowa. If you don't have SIGNIFICANT credentials, leave this section blank)

Thanks!

- (Your Name, phone, and email. They'll know how to get a hold of you).

Stephen's right. When in doubt, definitely go for the sexier genre. My main point was it's never a good idea to try to trick people into reading your script by going with a genre that doesn't match. I keep seeing people advise Janet to label her dance romance as a romantic comedy; it's a fine strategy, but if her script isn't light-hearted with a role for Jennifer Aniston, agents will say "What the hell is this?" and throw it away.

So, definitely go with "crime thriller."

Also, I know there are a lot of articles that say using the "it's ____ meets _____" is passe. The truth is, most agents and producers still pitch scripts like that. When they get a new project, the first thing they do is come up with a list of similar, successful movies that they can compare it to. It's a great method of establishing the tone, genre, and audience for your script right off the bat.

The trick is to do it well. For example, if you say, "It's SILENCE OF THE LAMBS meets MAGNIFICENT SEVEN," I'm like "Huh? What elements from each is in this movie? How do those go together?" But if you say, "It's SILENCE OF THE LAMBS set in the Old West" suddenly, I can see the plot.

It wouldn't surprise me if LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN was pitched as "It's TAKEN with a SAW-esque twisted domino scheme." TAKEN and SAW?!!! That's "cheap production" meets "huge franchise." Who wouldn't want to read that?

But the most important thing to remember is that EVERY ELEMENT OF YOUR QUERY MUST WORK TOGETHER. If you do the "it's ____ meets ____," those examples must cast the proper tone on your logline. The title needs to further emphasize the cleverness of your logline. It all needs to work as one.

(At this point, I should add a disclaimer. I work for one company, so I don't speak for all the agents and producers in the world. Some may hate it when people use the "____ meets ____" approach. I haven't met such a person, but they're bound to exist. I can only speak from my experience and my friends' experiences reading query after query.)

Don't send the SASE. If they pass, they'll simply destroy your script. If you include a SASE for the script, it's a not-so-subtle statement of, "Hey, there's a good chance you won't like this script, in which case, I want it back so I don't have to print out more copies." As opposed to saying, "Warm up your copy machine 'cause every one you know will want to read this mofo!"

Don't include a regular SASE for their response either. It will get lost in the 4-6 weeks it takes for them to read the script and no matter what happens at that time, you'll want to start communicating via phone or email.

The truth is, there's no "magic bullet" into Hollywood.

Everyone believes that they have an amazing script that only needs to be discovered. They spend hundreds or thousands of dollars searching for that magic bullet, and always come up empty.

If you want notes on your script, pay for a consultant. If a consultant promises all these industry hookups if they like your script (and if you pay them their $600), don't believe them. If they really had the ear of Alan Horn and Jeff Robinov, they wouldn't be working as a free-lance consultant.