This week we had script sales about a human turning into a toad (the imaginatively named TOAD TRIP), a wooden pigeon turning into a real one (VALIANT), a man who wants to turn his wife into a cyborg (THE STEPFORD WIVES), and a studio that wants to turn Charlie Chan into a chick (CHARLIE CHAN -- I can just hear the pitch: "See, Charlie can be a girl's name, too! -- I think McG's head just exploded thinking of the possibilities for his CHARLIE'S ANGELS franchise.)
Actually, since the amazing Lucy Liu is attached to the CHARLIE CHAN project, this might not suck that much -- at least not until the scene where "Charlie" does that dumb-ass-CGI generated-impossible hangtime-roundabout-kung fu kick that began to piss me off the second time I saw it, not to mention the one hundred and fifty seventh time.
But THE STEPFORD WIVES? C'mon. Seriously. C'mon You're going to take a William Goldman-scripted 70's classic and hand it over to Frank Oz and Paul Rudnick? Whatever.
I've nothing against Rudnick and Oz. I thought IN AND OUT (which Rudnick scripted and Oz directed) was a tight, enjoyable little comedy. These guys are pros and do what they do really well. I just think STEPFORD WIVES is in a different leauge.
Goldman took the story and interweaved comedy with horror to produce a highly effective piece of satirical cinema. And if you're thinking "but IN AND OUT was a great piece of satirical cinema, too!", just relax a second, Ebert. While IN AND OUT successfully satirized modern society's perceptions of homosexuals, it pretty much smacked you over the head with it. I'm really dreading the equivalent of the "Kevin Kline gets down with his bad homosexual self" scene in the new STEPFORD. Goldman's approach with the original was more subtle, and for that reason it was more satisfying.
The realization that slowly crept up on you in THE STEPFORD WIVES (v1.0) was that the real husbands were just as bland as the robot wives they created for themselves -- and the horrible ennui of contemporary suburban life was suddenly more frightening than any "omigod they're robots!" scene.
I'm not saying that Oz and Rudnick can't pull it off. I'm just saying why bother?
All of us creative types have things we're naturally good at, and things we've learned to do, and things we aren't that good at (yet). This creates a creative trap: when approaching a project, we often work on the part we understand best — the part that scares us least. So if you're good at plot, you write the plot first, and then fill in the characters later. If you're good at characters, you write up the characters and then feel your way towards a plot.
Everyone pursuing a screenwriting career will eventually realize this journey is not for the thin of skin or for those who cannot handle the emotional ups and downs this business brings. If you haven’t yet experienced the soul crushing disappointment of finally having written a script that goes into development, but it doesn’t make it to production and sits on a shelf, I don’t envy you. It’s happened to me a handful of times out of my nearly two dozen paid screenwriting assignments. Learn this early — there are no guarantees in the screenwriting game. You take your lumps, heal, and move on to the next screenplay and the next one.
I love Readers! Yes they are the gatekeepers to the Promised Land and like it or not they do have power. But just how much? Well, I’m here to show you. I got my hands on a classified document folks, the holy grail… An actual copy of a real STUDIO MEMO covering GUIDELINES for their READERS.
Scenes must have a reason to exist in your screenplay. Each scene must advance the plot forward through dialogue and/or visual storytelling. Characters’ journeys drive the script’s narrative, and each scene must steer their journey forward. Although some scenes might not even contain any characters, these scenes must still provide information about your plot, as well as your characters’ lives and actions. There is no set rule as to how many lines, paragraphs, or pages constitute a scene.
The following has nothing to do with wet t-shirts. This entry is actually about screenwriting contests - a subject with little marquee value. One of the most popular category of questions that I find in my e-mail box is about screenwriting contests. As I say over and over, I believe that most are a waste of energy and entry fee. Some - like the Nicholl and Disney Fellowships - are very reputable and have launched a few Hollywood careers. Regardless of how reputable any contest might be, the screening process for most seems tenuous. Low fees for contest readers and a bulk of scripts guarantees a sloppy vetting system.
"Lowtide" writer, director and producer Kevin McMullin has sold his short story "Bomb" and is tabbed to write the script for "low seven figures" and "Gladiator" director Ridley Scott is attached to Direct. According to reports, 20th Century beat out studios Apple, Netflix, Sony, and Warner Bros.
Books are the fastest and easiest way you can learn from an expert. In screenwriting, it’s no different. Some of the best screenwriters and those who have mastered the craft, have created countless books trying to encapsulate all they’ve learned in their work. If you’re a new screenwriter and looking to improve or simply to learn how to create better scripts, these three books will help you out.
Everybody has a perspective. Everybody in your scene has a reason. They have their own voice, their own identity, their own history… But if you don’t know who everybody is and why they’re there, why they’re feeling what they’re feeling and why they’re doing what they’re doing, then you’re in trouble.
What is a successful second act? One that keeps the reader engaged, moves the story forward, and successfully delivers it into the falling action; that being the third act climax and the denouement. A bad screenplay has a second act that simply doesn't keep the narrative trajectory in place and thus the spine of the story sags; meaning rising tension and conflict is not taking place.