Just Effing Entertain Me

The Elegant Universe: Patterns in Writers

In my experience reading and analyzing scripts on a daily basis for the past several years, I have become very aware of patterns. I work with hundreds of writers. I attend screenwriting events. I am right in the thick of it. And like an ER doctor who has seen everything, I have pretty much seen it all. Things delight me – but nothing really surprises me anymore. Nobody likes to think that rather than being an individual, they are a statistic. But we are all statistics. Married, divorced, college-educated, not college-educated, white, black, Latino, Asian, middle child, youngest, employed, unemployed – there are patterns in society and they serve a purpose. They tell us who we are collectively – and individually. There are exceptions to every pattern and to every rule. But here are some patterns I have noticed, over and over again:

• Boastful, cock-sure writers usually don’t have very good scripts

• Shy, unsure writers anxious to get notes are more likely to have a good script

• Writers who can’t write good action lines have no “voice” yet

• Most beginning writers have no second act

• Most beginning writers think their idea is more original than it is

• Many writers, regardless of age, have not seen the classics

• Because a writer is a cinefile does not mean he or she is a good writer

• Fanboys do not necessarily make good writers; they are inspired but imitative

• Most writers with 133 page scripts do not have a handle on their story

• Many writers read too many how-to books and get totally confused

• Newer writers hate to kill their darlings and their pages are crowded with them

• Experienced writers hate to kill their darlings but do it before asked

• Clumsy, over-written action lines are the most accurate predictor of a bad script

• First time writers usually tell biographical stories

• Gory, ultra-violent horror is most often written by young men under the age of 25

• Dull romantic dramas are most often written by women over the age of 45

• Unfunny romcoms are most often written by young men under the age of 25

• Action scripts are almost always written by men of any age

• First time writers think their first script is brilliant

• Experienced writers will never show you their first script – ever

• Writers who use camera directions secretly want to direct

• Experienced female writers write well in any genre

• Inexperienced female writers often write about love

• Good characters never have bad dialogue

• Bad dialogue is never accompanied by good characters

• Structure is confusing for the first three scripts – then something clicks

• Writers who can’t articulate a quick logline have sprawling, confusing scripts

• Whether a writers is shy or charismatic has no bearing on the quality of writing

• Good writers never include pictures, maps or music with their script

• No new writer is realistic about breaking in to the business

• The location or gender of the writer has no bearing on the quality of the writing

• Age does not define an ability to come up with fresh ideas

• Most fresh ideas are in fact not fresh at all

• It takes a long time to understand “the same but different”

• Older writers most often write true or historical scripts

• Young male writers often imitate their favorite movies

• Female writers do not write American Pie or Harold and Kumar knock-offs

• Female writers are quite capable of writing great action but rarely do

• Divorcees often write about romance or revenge

• Most writers have not built up a good arsenal of scripts; all eggs are in one basket

• New writers think getting a rep is easy and will happen within a year or so

• Newly repped writers think their career will automatically take off in a huge way

• Experienced writers know they will go through many reps over time

• Younger writers often do not think send thank you notes when they get a read

• Older writers think Hollywood is more polite than it is

• Newer writers do not test their premises or write outlines properly

• Writers who regard themselves as writer-savants refuse to write what’s commercial – and may very well succeed after years of failure

• Writers who regard themselves as auteurs refuse to embrace that this is a sales job – and melt into a pool of bitter disillusionment and hate Hollywood thereafter

• Wealthy writers try to buy their way into the business using the most expensive software and consultants and melt into a bitter pool of outrage

• Writers with disposable incomes obsessively attend conferences and pitch fests more than they actually write

• Writers who cannot execute a script mechanically generally don’t have a good story

• Writers who have been disappointed over and over hate consultants or anything designed to help them succeed and nurse outraged, red-hot victim complexes

• First scripts suck

• Second scripts suck

• Third script suck a little less

• Writers with successful other careers feel entitled to success in Hollywood

• A writer’s determination to keep trying is in direct proportion to their talent

• Entitlement is in inverse proportion to talent

• Young writers think that Hollywood is only for the young

• Older writers think that Hollywood is only for the young

• Experienced writers know that Hollywood needs good stories and that a good story and being good in a room trumps age any day

• Talent is delightful and easy to spot on page one

• A bad script is a bad script from page one

There are exceptions to every single example I have given above, but in my experience and that of my colleagues, many of these observations are borne out again and again. Are you the exception to one of these patterns? Or do you see yourself in some of them? Seeing oneself in a pattern which may not be so positive is tough to do for anyone.

The truth about writing and breaking into this business lies somewhere in the grey space between all of these observations. For every single rule or pattern, there is an exception. But patterns are patterns for a reason; there is a learning curve when one becomes a screenwriter. And being a screenwriter, all on your own, in your basement or attic, leaves you with zero perspective. Those in the business know you very well though. We see the patterns of scripts and of writers. We see the patterns of success, failure, entitlement and determination.

You can potentially read this list and think – hey WAIT, I’m a 25 year old female whose first script is about stabbing that frat boy who cheated on me 28 times and my action lines suck and until this moment, I thought I’d have an agent by year end and sell this thing! Well – not so fast, right? Sometimes it’s good to look at yourself under a microscope. There’s so much to learn and so much that goes into this crazy pursuit – forgive yourself if you’ve fallen into a pattern. Awareness is the first step to recovery and an invaluable leg up to the next level of your evolution as a human being and a screenwriter. It’s okay to be part of a pattern – but is it the pattern you want to be part of?

From the Mailbag

Dear Mistress of the Cupcakes:

According to The Screenwriter’s Bible, Scene Headings and Action Lines start 1.5 inches from the left edge of the page. Character Cues, Dialogue, and Parenthesis start at 3.7, 2.5, and 3.1 respectively. All these numbers are adjustable in Final Draft. So my question is: What are the correct Indentations for Transitions and Shots? Trottier’s book doesn’t say anything about these two. I’ve looked online too but the sources don’t say too much. To see exactly what I’m talking about, open Final Draft, then go to the top where it says Format, then Elements, then click the Paragraph tab. This alone is one of the greatest features a screenwriting program can have.
-Wide Margin in Wisconsin

Dear Wide:

I asked my colleague Andrew Zinnes Master of the Donuts, to answer your question so here goes:

Shots begin at the same point as scene headings. And they are always in CAPITAL LETTERS. Transitions (like CUT TO:) start at the far right page margin and work back towards the center. I believe this margin is 7.5 inches in from the left (or 1 inch from the right edge of the paper).

But the real question is: what are you doing that you are monkeying around with these settings in Final Draft? The only answer that seems to make sense to me is that you are trying to create your own template in Word or Pages. I guess if you cannot afford FD that would be a way to go, but I would be interested to know what other little quirks or limitations pop up since Word isn’t specifically designed for the screenwriting process and therefore automatically conforms to the industry format standard. If this is not the case, then I would strongly suggest you leave everything be – you’re only asking for technological nightmares that will probably crush your creativity and keep you from writing.

The Rouge Wave Mailbag

Another interesting letter sent to the Rouge Wave, answered by one of our best readers at The Script Department, bon vivant and charmer, Tony Robenalt.

Dear Rouge Wave:
Can you reveal what sort of “target audience” considerations are to be made, going into a project? How important is such a consideration? Thanks.
-Masochist in Melbourne

Dear Masochist:

When I write something, the only target audience I really consider, beyond me, is the type of person who loves the genre in which I’m writing. If I’m working on a horror script, my goal is to write something that horror fans will enjoy. And since I’m a horror fan, and not an atypical one, I pretty much just focus on what I would like to see.

Here’s how I break it down (via a series of questions):

Is the concept intriguing? Is it a horror concept? Does it naturally evoke scenes and situations that are scary, gory, suspenseful, spine-tingling, etc?

As for the execution itself:

Is this REALLY scary? What sort of a reaction will it provoke in my audience? Will it make them uncomfortable (in a horror sorta way)? Is it exploring territory that leads them down dark paths? Does it bring them face-to-face with the unknown? With their worst fears? With their most dreaded nightmares? Have I created situations that are rife with terror-filled suspense?

Etc.

I’m a firm believer that YOU are the most important target audience for anything you write. If not, why are you writing it? So ask yourself: What types of films do I regularly pay to see? What are my favorite films of the last few years? Of all time?

Take those movies and dissect them, sequence-by-sequence, scene-by-scene, beat-by-beat — and figure out why they work so well for you. Then apply that knowledge to your own scripts.

And while I think it’s a good idea to (metaphorically) travel through unfamiliar landscapes every once in a while, I don’t think it’s beneficial to veer *that* far outside of what you dig. If, for example, you hate Romantic Comedies, and don’t understand why people waste time watching them, then you obviously don’t know the audience for Romantic Comedies. It would be silly to try to write one. You’ll never really *get* the genre enough to pull off a decent script.

So, yeah, target audience consideration is important. But the thing is — you have to know your target audience. And whom do you know more than yourself?

Thank You Note Question

Rouge Waver Chris asked a great question in the comments section about the Thank You Note post on the Rouge Wave:

My penmanship, to be charitable, sucks. Is typing the body of the message too formal for a simple thank you note?

Great question, Chris, which is why I put it in a post instead of letting it languish in the comments section. No, I don’t think a typed thank you note is a problem. Handwritten is obviously better but you’re still going to be ahead of the pack that you sent a thank you at all.

As an aside, a book that really changed my cursive for the better – enormously – is Vimala Roger’s Your Handwriting Can Change Your Life. Check it out. Seriously, it’s cool. Penmanship can be reflective of other things going on; the care and time you put in to something as simple as your signature or a to-do list is an important part of being very aware and present in all that you do. Bad handwriting isn’t something you are stuck with. You can change it.

There are a lot of posts on The Rouge Wave of a sudden – don’t miss the First Person Essay Competition - deadline July 16th. The winner will receive a $25 gift certificate to AMC Theaters, The Script Department or Amazon, your choice.

The Rouge Wave Mailbag

Dear Rougewave,

I keep running into the advice to never use “we see”. People say that a lot of readers will throw my script into the “round filing cabinet” if I use it because in general they hate to see “we” in a script. They say I shouldn’t take the chance. Is this true?! Do you guys really hate it that much? So much so that if I’ve written a killer script you’ll toss it out just because I used “we” a couple of times? The thing is, I’ve seen it in all kinds of scripts, but the same people tell me those scripts are later drafts and that I’ll rarely if ever see it in early drafts of spec scripts. But I thought spec drafts WERE what I was reading! Gah! I’m confused! Am I taking a chance by using it?

Sincerely,

Ed F.

Ed,

First off, close your eyes and take a deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep breath. A nice, relaxing, cleansing breath. Innnnnnnnn… ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut. Good. (Open your eyes.) Okay, here *we* go…

This is by far the most frequently asked screenwriting-related question (at least on the internet). And I have to be honest — when Julie told me someone had asked it, I begged her to let me weigh in. Man, for ages, I’ve been waiting for someone to give a definitive answer. *The* answer. The one that would end all speculation. Well, I’m going to attempt to do that now. Yeah, yeah, I know the debate will rage on long after this blog entry has passed away and gone to cyber-heaven, but, what the heck, lemme tell you what *I* think…

“We xxx (see, hear, fly over, tumble through, etc.)” is part of the screenwriting lexicon. It’s not quite a formatting tool, like INT. or EXT., but it’s close. I have seen it used so often, I practically *expect* it now whenever I crack open a script (or scroll down in a pdf or FD document). And, yeah, early drafts of spec scripts that sold (and are in development or have been produced) are sometimes riddled with it. And since I know the *real* question is about early drafts of specs that broke their writers into the business, rest assured, you’ll see it in those, too. (Check out Brad Inglesby’s THE LOW DWELLER, James Simpson’s ARMORED and Jon Spaihts’ PASSENGERS, for starters.)

So put your mind at ease — you can use it. Just use it wisely. And creatively. But that applies to everything, right? Instead of writing a bunch of random “We see Gary walking into the bar. We see Todd stumbling out of the bathroom. We see Veronica caving Fred’s skull in with a hammer” sentences, think about exactly why you might want to use it on a given occasion. Perhaps it’s to create a POV shot in your reader’s mind: “We inch our way down the corridor… toward the blood spattered door.” Or maybe it’s to draw attention to something we see, but a character in the scene doesn’t: “Right as Paul turns away from the closet, its door quietly swings open, and we see two glowing RED EYES peering out of it. Paul is oblivious, though, and we want to warn him, we want to scream “Watch out!” at the top of our lungs, as the dark, hulking SHAPE glides out of the closet…”

Crude examples, but you get the idea.

And, yeah, people will say, “Well, in both of those passages, you could omit ‘we’ and still have the same visual.” And then they’ll offer their rewrite and it *won’t* be the same thing — it *won’t* imply the same visual. It won’t have the same *feeling*. It won’t have the same, dare I write it, Voice. I’ve seen that a million times.

Because here’s the thing… the real issue: When you write a screenplay, your job is to give a reader (be it a reader-reader, an agent, a producer, a studio exec, an actor, a director, etc.) the experience of watching a movie. You want to immerse them in the film you’ve played over and over in your mind. Basically, you want them to feel as if they’re watching *your* movie when they read your script.

I say use whatever tools you have to use to accomplish that. Use them creatively, use them wisely, and use them confidently.

“We back away, slowly, as the hordes of mutant anti-we-seers crawl out of the woodworks.”

Tony Robenalt

****

Yeah. Tony’s pretty cool. That’s why he reads at The Script Department. If you want Tony’s notes on your script you can request him personally. If you dare.

Rouge Wave Mailbag

Good morning, Wavers! Or evening, as the case may be. There are Wavers all over the world. That’s what my little site meter global map tells me anyway. From as far away as Chile, South Africa and the Orkney Islands. Unless that’s just a bunch of punk hackers playing tricks on me. Ha ha watch this! Iceland!

Yesterday the unthinkable happened to me. I watched Sex and the City and…couldn’t get through it. Margaux and I were lucky enough to have scored the dvd so we did some home viewing. The Wave-inatrix is such a fan of the series. But the movie – for me – fell flat. It didn’t lead off with the thematic question Carrie used to type into her computer screen. It lacked the edge of the series; the darkness and the poignancy. There were set pieces without cause or point – like what will Carrie pack – if you’ve seen it, you know what I’m talking about. Really? So I with a heavy heart, I must admit, I was disappointed.

But. Today we have a spirited question from the mailbag which PJ McIlvaine was good enough to answer. So here we go:

Dear Rouge Wave:

I recently saw a movie, well, to put it kindly, blew chunks. I won’t say which movie to protect the innocent. The tone was uneven, the pacing was horrible, plotwise it was all over place, and the climax (as it were) was unbelievable. Talk about God stepping in to save the day! Worse, this starred an actor who really should have known better. Why does Hollywood keep making such clunkers when there are so many good scripts begging to be made?

Yours Truly,

Foaming in Fresno

Dear Foaming,

I can empathize with your sentiments. I’ve seen my share of dogs that toplined actors and actresses who “should have known better.” But actors and actresses are often roped into doing movies that should have died a slow death in Development Hell but came back to life for reasons other than being a “good script.”

The Exec Producer may owe someone a favor. The Producer may need a credit to jumpstart his lagging career. Maybe Oink Dinkledoink, the hottest actor on the planet, has a pet project that is a million short of financing, and Studio With Clout and Big Bucks will give him the dough if he does this action adventure nonsense which has no action or adventure but they’ve already paid two million for it and have gone through a slew of a A-list re-writers. The Director has a contract to fulfill. An Agent needs the commish to buy a new sports car.

Also, maybe at the beginning of this mess, the script was good. I mean, it had to be good for someone to option or buy it? Right? Right?

Wrong. Sometimes only the concept is good, and the rest of the script is mushola. Reservation for Rewrite City, stat! Call Alan Ball! He might say no, but there are plentyof other writers in the pipeline who will say yes. And when they do, their fingerprints will be all over the place. Don’t forget the Execs who will chime in with their notes. Someone wiser than me once opined: “failure is an orphan, while success has many parents”. Or something like that.

So the next time you see a crappy movie, don’t blame the actor. He may have known better, but the devil (in the details) made him do it.

PJ McIlvaine

Pitch Fest Post Game

One word, Wavers. Wow. What a satisfying, fun, efficient event the Great American Pitch Fest was. Bob and Signe know how to deliver. I couldn’t even say what the best part for me was because I had so much fun but okay probably my class because it was so fun. I attended all three days and yesterday went through the pitching process with my dear friend and Script Department business manager who had a great script to pitch. So the Wave-inatrix experienced, first hand, the brilliant, innovative pitching system totally unique to the GAPF.

It’s really such a gas. Everybody gets an alphabetical, numbered booklet of who will be there to hear the pitches. You choose which companies you want to pitch to and then you stand in a line with the corresponding number. No more than five or six people are in each line. Inside the ballroom, the pitchees sat at numbered tables which corresponded to the number of the line and their number in the book. Everybody gets five minutes to pitch. A bell goes off and you move up in your line and file into the ballroom. Then you wait about two minutes. Another bell goes off and the pitchers already inside have to wrap up and you find your numbered table. I never had to wait more than 30 seconds to sit down.

Another bell rings and you start your pitch. Four minutes in someone comes on the PA and says ONE MINUTE LEFT and you have to wrap it the heck up. The pitchees listened attentively, took notes and then quickly gave a thumbs up or down on sending them the script. Of the 15 pitches Jeff and I made, we got 13 read requests. So we had a very high rate of return. When you’re done pitching, you shuffle on out, get back into the next numbered line and so on. I have attended another (unnamed) major pitching opportunity that happens in LA each fall as part of a larger screenwriting trade show and let me tell you – there is absolutely no comparison. Whereas the other pitch opportunity led to huge lines, frustration and confusion, the GAPF was smooth, fun, short lines, lots of laughter and camaraderie and a lot of very happy faces. Afterward, the managers, agents and producers hung around for a cocktail reception and pitchers were able to grab another hour of chit-chat and casual pitching.

I can’t say enough about how fun and effective this event is. I’m on board in a huge way. I wish the GAPF were more than an annual event, in fact. I chatted with Syd Field, Karl Iglesias, Pilar Alessandra, Blake Snyder and Linda Seger. Bill True and I became fast friends and you will soon see a guest blog/interview with Bill on the Rouge Wave about his new film Runaway, which screened at the GAPF on Saturday evening.

It looks to me as if the GAPF is poised to become the preeminent must-attend screenwriting event in Los Angeles. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and say they have arrived at the top spot as of last weekend. Actually, it’s no limb, I can compare from my own experience attending other events. If you attend one screenwriting conference in the Los Angeles area, this is the one to attend. Hands down.

Last year, at the other large screenwriting event in Los Angeles, I heard nothing but complaints about disorganization. Attendees were frustrated and pissed off. Over this last weekend, I heard nothing but glowing reviews. Even one guy (hi Doug) who arrived irritated because there was a mix up in what he’d registered for, was later spotted grinning exuberantly and flushed with excitement as he lapped up the free classes and killed during the pitching. One of my volunteers (thanks to the three of them!) called me last night and said it was the best, most productive weekend he’s ever had. And that’s splitting his duties for the Script Department with the classes and events he attended.

So – enough gushing – the Wave-inatrix is a gusher, what can I say – and let’s move on to the good part. The highlights.

*the woman pitching in a tiara and a glittery, sequined princess outfit

*the adrenaline rush ONE MORE MINUTE induces

*the momentary power outage during which the pitchers paused for 1 nanosecond and then kept right on going because any second it’s ONE MORE MINUTE

*the REO Speedwagon sound of the bell that indicates it’s time to move on

*sideways glances revealing pitchers opening up binders with illustrations, photos and sketches

*the woman pulling a carry-on size suitcase to each pitch (what was she pitching, Barton Fink? Was there a human head in that thing?)

*I HEART Jesse Douma and Dana Hahn of The Writer’s Store. Man it’s hard not to shop til you drop at their booth. Geez.

*the woman pitching in a tiara – seriously, seriously – wow.

My class, Top Ten Things Readers HATE was very well attended and all in the class asked if I could possibly recap that top ten list here on the Rouge Wave. Actually, my list went to eleven (ha). I will be posting a recap of my class tomorrow and the top ten list will be appearing incrementally in the Writer’s Store ezine on an ongoing basis. I will also be teaching the same class at the Writer’s Store, sponsored by the GAPF, in upcoming weeks. I’m not boasting, I’m just saying that all of my feedback cards had giant smiley faces on them. It was a laugh riot, my class. In a good way.

Curiosity Makes the Writer

Are you like me, Wavers – do you have a deep, abiding curiosity about life? If you see a word but can’t define it – do you look it up right away? What if you are having a conversation with someone and they bring up John Muir? What do you know about the man and his place in California History? How about the Spanish Civil War? When was it and what it was it all about? Who was Robert Capa? What do you know about Steinbeck aside from the obvious (Grapes of Wrath – please tell me you knew that!) Three Mile Island? Canterbury Tales? Can you hold your own in a world brimming with facts and history? But most importantly – does it matter?

Yes, it matters. Especially if you are a writer. You should be informed and in the process of being informed all the time.

When I was just a mini-Wave-inatrix, I lived in a very rural area. We got three tv channels and my parents were hippies who’d graduated from UC Berkeley in the 60s, moved to the country where they could build their own home and raise their own food and they never looked back. They became school teachers and my father had a formidable library full of the classics.

Owing to the limited tv viewing that was allowed by my parents: The Wonderful World of Disney, Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, Mary Tyler Moore and Carol Burnett, we kids were stuck either going outside for our adventures (we owned a slew of horses and ponies) or going through my dad’s library and reading stuff like The Last of the Mohicans, Treasure Island, D.H. Lawrence, Dickens and most of all – Steinbeck. My dad loved John Steinbeck.

But my favorite reading was the encyclopedia. My dad had the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, from A to Z. At night, I would choose a letter, take the encyclopedia to bed and read about everything from Djibouti to the Dutchess of Windsor to Denmark, Drought and Dickens. Yes, I was a little freak. I loved learning about the world, one alpha character at a time. And it has served me very well in my life.

Nobody has actual, updated encyclopedia sets anymore. Nobody that I know, anyway. So I wiki things I am curious about. And my dear friend Keith and I regularly play a game we call “Stupid American” – I know, it’s not very politically correct but we quiz each other about random things like:

The Reformation
The Renaissance
The Restoration

When and what was each? What time period? What happened? We get as far as we can and then we look it up. When did Napoleon live? What was his deal? What does it mean when somebody refers to their “Waterloo”? What about Ivan the Terrible? Who was Emmett Till? How do you pronounce Scheherazade* and what in the heck is that, anyway? What is the oldest epic poem?* Did you know that the last Empress of Russia, Alexandra, was one of Queen Victoria’s granddaughters? And she met a very nasty end, in 1918.

Let me tell you – these things come in handy. It came in handy to know how to pronounce Scheherazade when I called Scheherazade Productions last week. It came in handy when I got a great job working on a script about John Muir. Because I know something about Mr. Muir and that meant a lot to the producer. It comes in handy to be able to correctly identify that an occurrence in a script set in the Middle Ages was not yet possible technologically.

More and more, people bandy about terms but they really don’t know what they’re talking about. And it’s embarrassing. Rather than allowing ourselves to be dumbed down by our current tsetse fly culture, use the vast resource called the Internet to both satisfy your curiosity and learn more about Beowulf than the movie would have you know. What about 300? Is that true? Real? Accurate? Well, of course it’s not accurate, so to speak – it was an interpretation of a real event – but it’s way more fun and interesting if you know what the facts really were so you have a grasp of the jumping off point for the movie.

You can’t know everything and of course you don’t want to be an annoying, walking game of Trivial Pursuit – but this is not trivia, guys – this is our world. And having a knowledge and a curiosity about it will add depth to you as a writer and as a person. Take the time to bone up on some history and of course current events. Get informed, stay informed and never let that curious side of yourself go hungry. It will pay off in your writing, in your meetings and in your personal life.

*Sha-hair-ah-zod
*Gilgamesh

From the Mailbag

Happy weekend ahead, Wavers. Don’t forget, today is the last day to vote for the best short scene for the Out-of-Towners competition. It is my birthday weekend so I’ll be throwing myself a party and then going to Palm Springs for a couple of days so the RW will go on vacation until Tuesday. Or Wednesday. Depends. In the meantime, here is a great question the Wave-inatrix received in the RW mailbag:

What do script readers mean when they talk about “character work”? Does this mean that your characters were depicted as real/complex and that the reader identified with the ones the writer intended for him or her to identify with?
-Goran in Aus

Dear Goran:

In a nutshell, you are correct. This is a good question. Actually, at The Script Department, “character work” is indeed one of the categories in our evaluation grid but most production companies and corporat- type script coverage services simply call this “character”. Same thing.

As a refresher, these are the categories used on most grids:

Premise
Storyline
Character
Dialogue

At the Script Department, we use these categories:

Idea
Overall execution
Narrative/Structure
Characters/dialogue
Effective Scene Work
Professional Appearance
Commercial Potential
Readiness for Market

Mind you, our grid has a different bent; our aim is not to simply tick off why the script would be a PASS but to expand on the normal grid to give our clients a more specific sense of what is or is not working.

So here are the definitions for your average prodco grid:

Premise – is the idea fresh and original? Is it a movie?

Storyline – pacing and narrative; does it move at a good pace, does it have complications?

Character – are the characters organic, unique and believable?

Dialogue – is the dialogue natural, clever and memorable?

And again, using The Script Department grid:

Idea – is the premise or concept fresh and unique?

Overall execution – an overview of the level of execution of all elements

Narrative/Structure – are the act breaks effective, is the pacing spot-on, does the script have that rollercoaster shape?

Characters/dialogue – are the characters and their dialogue organic, clever, unique and well written?*

Effective Scene Work – Do the scenes have beginning, middle and end? Do they move the story forward? Does the writer jump in late and get out early? Are scenes landing?

Professional Appearance – how is the writer’s grasp of language usage and grammar? Are there typos and malaprops?

Commercial Potential – relative to the market, is this script going to appeal to audiences?

Readiness for Market – is this script ready to send out quite yet?

*We combine character and dialogue because honest to god, I have never ever read a script with good characters and bad dialogue or bad characters with good dialogue. To separate these two completely interwoven and connected elements seems very odd to me but I suppose there’s some kind of logic to it. Somewhere.

The Rouge Wave Mailbag

Long time Waver Monica sent in a great question and I turned to my friend, manager Garth Pappas for the answer:

…what is your feeling on a movie that does well, to which you have a similar kind of project and hitting the town/producers after that opening weekend? I always tend to hear things like the Monday morning meetings at the studios/production companies being about them trying to find more projects like something that’s done well.

Garth replies:

This is a very good question and there’s no right answer. The real question to ask is how good is the piece of material. If a movie does well it’s good for the genre; but, the screenplay has to set a bar with regards to characters and story. It’s true other studios want the next “Ironman” franchise or even the next “Juno,” but what it comes down to is the script. How big are the characters? Will the roles attract ‘A’ list talent? Is it a studio idea or geared for the independent world? “Juno” was a darling film just like “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” but these are gems and the studios aren’t counting on these movies to hit it big. Their money is on high concept properties that’ll attract stars.

Now, the spec market is hit with scripts that are similar with successful movies but the percentage sold is low. A screenplay “too similar” to a released film will hurt the submission. Studios will find every reason to pass so the originality of the script must stand out. Don’t forget, you’re in competition with many other specs; specs with talent attached; specs from produced writers; and, specs that were in the marketplace a year ago. Readers remember and keep track of every submission. So, if you’re script is similar, it has to exhibit enough of a unique voice to overshadow what’s already been done.

Keep on hitting those keys.