Question for the pro screenwriters and industry pros

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question for the pro screenwriters and industry pros

    I know this question has been asked a few times before, but I couldn't find any threads dealing with it in the FAQ section, so I figured I'd start a fresh one here. Perhaps this one is destined for FAQ!

    So, here goes (actually, two related q's):

    What are some of the major areas, craft-wise, where there is a consistent disparity between aspiring screenwriters (with potential) and professional screenwriters? What common mistakes do aspiring screenwriters make that pros have transcended?

  • #2
    I'm not a Pro but IMHO the most basic and consistent misstep made by a newbie is the selection of a story that has little to zero spec market value. Understanding the business and knowing what sells and what doesn't is the essential cornerstone of any successful spec writer.

    Newbies write what interests them.

    Pros write what interest them and the market.

    It's not a choice between commercial or passion. It's about developing a commercial sensibility and creating a story that is commercial and you feel passionate about.

    If you are the kind of writer who can not ever find passion for commercial material, you should think seriously about if screenplay writing is right for you.

    My 2 cents.

    Comment


    • #3
      Good Scripts/Bad Scripts

      Opinions are all my own:

      1) Bland idea. Nobody would ever want to pay $ to see this movie. When I do one of these pitch clinics the main problem with the stories being pitched is either that they are boring, or on rare occasions soul-less commercial crap. You need a story that you are passionate about that a whole bunch of people will want to see (as an escape from their boring lives).

      2) Unfocused. No central conflict - just a bunch of incidents. They don't even *have* a story, they just have a character going from incident to incident. Who is your protagonist? What do they want? What ONE THING prevents them from getting what they want?

      3) Bad writing. Bland writing. I read scripts for one of the events I was at recently, and many of the scripts were just poorly written. You still have to be able to construct a sentence that makes sense and actually *use those sentences* to create emotions in the reader. Words are the tools we use - so be an expert at using them.

      There are industry pros who will tell you that the writing isn't important if the story is there - but they're forgetting that you have to read that writing to get the story. If the writing is awful, they aren't going to fully understand the story. It's *communicating* - the greatest story in the world told to you in some foreign language is pointless. You won't understand it. So good writing is *critical* to the reader understanding your great story.

      4) Description instead of actions. It's not a novel - don't tell me what color the frigging curtains are. The only time the color of the curtains may come into play is if they are bright red and the protagonist is going to use the material to make a gown for the Grand Ball. If it's not critical to the story - leave it out. Meanwhile - make sure the characters are DOING SOMETHING not just sitting there yapping.

      5) Characters we care about. *People* pay to see movies - so make sure your script is about people. Make sure you really dig into the characters and make us understand them. Don't just give us the surface, give us the *person*. Characters aren't chess pieces you move around the plot, they need to act like real people. They need to be motivaqted. They need to have issues they are struggling with. They need to be *human*.

      6) Be willing to learn. I don't understand why so many writers think they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. That's just crazy. Everyone can learn something - and there's something we all *need* to learn. You never reach the point where you know everything. When I was at Santa Fe teaching I took 2 classes during my free time. And I learned something. I know the learning thing has nothing to do with craft, per se, but it really has *everything* to do with it. If you aren't on a quest for knowledge you aren't doing the things that will improve your writing. You aren't reading scripts, you aren't studying films, you aren't reading novels, etc. The quickest way to becoming creatively dead is to think you know everything.

      - Bill

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Good Scripts/Bad Scripts

        Great stuff, guys. Thank you.

        Looking forward to more...

        Comment


        • #5
          Idea. Idea. Idea.

          Also, speaking in terms of the suspense/adventure/thriller genre, I've seen a lot of pro and non-pro writers ignore opportunities within their script to heighten tension. In essense, they choose the easy way out, both for the characters, and for themselves.

          Comment


          • #6
            unca,

            got any examples? i'd be very interested to know more.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Good Scripts/Bad Scripts

              2) Unfocused. No central conflict - just a bunch of incidents. They don't even *have* a story, they just have a character going from incident to incident. Who is your protagonist? What do they want? What ONE THING prevents them from getting what they want?
              This is a definite biggie, along with incredibly illogical decisions by characters, which only serve to move the plot along.

              For example, there are myriad amateur scripts out there, that use an "inciting incident" containing absolutely no logic, cohesiveness, or forethought at all.

              For example, a Nobel prize-winning scientist receives an anonymous letter with a plane ticket to Bangkok in it. So naturally, this renowned thinker of our time boards the plane, not telling friends, family or co-workers where he's heading.

              He arrives in Bangkok, and a bum drops a hotel reservation in his hand, then high-tails it. Obviously Mr. Genius just has to take a cab to the seediest district in Thailand, and checks into the hotel.

              Upon entering his room, he finds a mysterious phone number written on a piece of paper, with "CALL ME IF YOU WANT SOME FUN" scrawled on it. Monsieur IQ 190 is soooo curious that he proceeds to call the number and sets up a midnight meeting in a dark alley right in the middle of Drug Central.

              When he reaches this den of inequity, the scientist is then knocked out, gagged, and launched into a life-and-death race against time, hoping to counter the forces of evil before they can release Biolex XXX onto the hapless population of Bulgaria...

              Total and absolute BS, as anyone with an IQ over 10 would never have moved past Step 1 in this contrived and illogical plot.

              Comment


              • #8
                Pro's vs. non-pro's

                My clients include both pro and non-pro, and I of course read scripts that have been produced, and also some purchased specs.

                Deus and Bill Martell have pretty much covered it ... yes, an interesting, dramatically viable, potentially salable concept has to be the biggest and most important distinction.

                Not that all pro premises are great. But most premises by the pros are significantly stronger than most premises by the non-pros.

                We can devise several tests for the worthiness of a premise. Can it be conveyed clearly in a concise manner? If it takes much more than 50 words to explain clearly ... it may be too unfocused, or too complex (and yes, high-concept premises should be able to be conveyed in 25 words or less).

                Assuming the concept is clear and can be conveyed concisely, then ... is it in some way intriguing, compelling, or fascinating? Were it to happen in real life, would it be gossip- and/or newsworthy? That's an important criterion.

                Beyond the foundational idea ...

                Bill noted about non-pros moving the characters around like chess pieces, in the sense of them not seeming like real, flesh-and-blood people. I agree, but some writers (a goodly percentage of non-pros, not very many pros) also move them around like chess pieces in another way: by having them do things that they really would not do, for the sake of a "good" line, action, or reaction, or so the plot works out the way the writer wants it to. That is, for the sake of a laugh or surprise, or to have the plot work a certain way, some writers will have characters act out-of-character. And we're thinking, "Oh, he'd *never* do that." And sometimes, "NO one would do that!" Accompanied by internal comments of "gimme a break!" and "yeah, right!"

                So credibility-- of incident and especially character -- is a big difference. Not with the top-level non-pros, of course.

                I write "HDWK?" in the margins of non-pro scripts quite often, but very, very rarely in pro scripts. It means, of course, "How do we know?" -- relative to some bit of background or inside information or a character's inner thoughts stated in the description, but which wouldn't come across on the screen. For novels, fine. But on screen, we have to see or hear it. Treat the reader like the viewer.

                Another big difference: only about a third of the non-pro's, compared to most of the pro's, are able to "get into the heads of the characters." They clearly know and understand their characters, and beyond that, are thinking their thoughts and feeling their emotions. They are able to do that for one character and then immediately leap into the head of the other ... or be in both simultaneously, and then kind of switch perspectives immediately, like switching between windows of open programs on a computer.

                Finally, good pro's are good to excellent in all areas: idea, structure, plotting, characterization, dialogue, and quality of scene description/action. Probably there are exceptions in some collaboration teams ... where one guy may be brilliant in one area, good in some, and weak in, say, structure, and he works with someone who is great in structure but has a different weakness. But for pro's working on their own: they can be better in some areas, but they can't usually afford to be *bad* or even decidedly weak in any one area. They have to be fairly good to excellent in all areas.

                Almost all non-pros have at least one area where they are decidedly weak. If it's structure: that can be learned. If it's language mechanics: that can be learned, with some time and effort. If it's characterization and/or dialogue where they aren't just a bit weak, but seriously deficient: better find a collaborator.

                Jeff Newman
                storynotes.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  tonyrob

                  non-commercial ideas that nobody would spent 3 hours and twenty bucks to see. lousy writing. i mean pure crap. poor narrative, dialogue that fell off the back of a truck. redundant scenes or scenes that don't need to be there. typos. why typos? we have software with spellcheck and there's always rewrites where you check your work, so why any typos. a script shouldn't have even one typo

                  mostly though, terrible ideas. boring ideas. lame ideas


                  zilla

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Phoenix,

                    Specific examples are hard. Let me see if I can add a bit to what I said.

                    We know that conflict is imperative in drama, and that obstacles help create conflict, either within the character as an emotional issue or between the character and his/her environment (physical obstacles, other characters preventing his advance, etc). What I've seen way too many times are scripts where the writer lets the main character off easy by letting secondary characters suffer through things that the main character should have to overcome.

                    Especially in thrillers, etc, things should never be easy for the main character, yet aspiring writers overlook opportunities to put their lead's feet to the fire.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      To understand that screenwriting and moviemaking is a business.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Boy, hard to add to the wealth above...IMO;

                        Unique approach in taking us to a new world

                        Not enough story complication to sustain Act II without endless spectator action sequences
                        (yes, I mean Matrix Reloaded)

                        Supporting characters that are not strongly linked to the internal and external conflict of the main character

                        Inadequate diametric opposition between story goal and the protag's ability to achieve it (internal vs external)

                        Unrealistic behavior in realistic characters (professor above)

                        Allegorical descriptions the camera cannot show (HDWK)

                        ON THE NOSE dialogue

                        Any scene without conflict

                        $0.02
                        REMb

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          the main difference between the working pros that I know and me is that the working pros tend to write everyday whereas i tend to write when i'm inspired to do so.

                          also they don't let their self-doubt get in the way of their writing whereas i find that rather crippling.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            thanks unca... i appreciate the clarification.

                            i asked mainly because i often get annoyed by the Job principle... where i'm watching a film and the lead has a world of hurt heaped on them, over and over again... to the point where i find myself saying "enough already!"

                            obstacles that don't develop the character or drive the story forward... end up hurting the story.

                            and invariably in those cases, the payoff isn't enough to compensate for the pain the lead has had to go through.

                            the thin middle ground between giving my lead an easy ride and throwing bricks at them needlessly for the sake of added conflict... that's what i'm striving for, i guess.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Unca Leo wrote:

                              "... speaking in terms of the suspense/adventure/thriller genre, I've seen a lot of pro and non-pro writers ignore opportunities within their script to heighten tension."

                              And:

                              "... I've seen way too many ... scripts where the writer lets the main character off easy by letting secondary characters suffer through things that the main character should have to overcome."

                              I think there may be two reasons for that. Probably others, too, but here are my two hypotheses:

                              1. Writers often identify with their main character (which, as long as the main character is more than just a stand-in for the writer, is fine -- desirable, even). But since they identify with the main character -- or at any rate like and sympathize with them (or both empathize *and* sympathize) -- some writers are reluctant to put their characters through the wringer. It's like making a friend suffer. Or like making ourselves suffer.

                              But, here's where the "no pain, no gain" maxim applies. Even if it pains us, we have to challenge and stress our main characters -- sometimes (depending on the story and genre) cause them deep misery, trauma, and/or terror.

                              Otherwise, it lessens the emotional experience for the audience. And it makes life -- and the solving of the problem -- too easy for the character. Which just isn't interesting to watch. And without the main character having endured some blood, sweat, and tears, we won't feel they've really earned their success (if they are indeed success at the end).

                              Of course, as Phoenix points out, one can go too far with that ... and it just becomes sadistic while not advancing plot, or being pertinent to character revelation or change, or to theme. I think letting them off too easy is the more common error (especially with non-pro's), but the other extreme is to be avoided as well. An example I can think of right away is "AI," where I thought it became perverse and hard to continue to witness all the disappointment, anguish, and pain that the kid/android went through (since he was conscious and had feelings).

                              So we have to avoid both the Scylla of the boring, emotionless easy road and the Charybdis of sadistic and unproductive torment of the character and audience (if I may be allowed to trot out an allusion to Greek mythology).

                              And the second reason that non-pro writers miss opportunities to heighten tension and/or challenge the main characters?

                              2. Some writers are thinking in terms of plot logic only, and not of the Audience Throughline -- what the audience is (and could be) thinking and feeling from moment to moment. They are thinking in terms of incidents that are a result of this and which lead to that, and which qualify as such-and-such (an act break, a midpoint) ... all of which may be necessary and even good. But they forget about how all of that is supposed to impact on the reader or viewer.

                              And they forget, while brainstorming, outlining, and writing, about taking the audience's thoughts and emotions into account. They fail to ask themselves, "What is the audience going to be thinking here? Or feeling? How can I surprise them in some way -- either with a small jolt, an unanticipated revelation, an unforeseen incident, or an event that plays out not as predicted? And how can I provide them with more emotion, by intensifying or adding to the events already at hand?"

                              Some writers (not the good ones, of course) forget that the outline -- and from there, the plot -- isn't just about logistics and logic. It's not just a bunch of puzzle pieces that must be fit together. It's about making the reader or viewer think and especially feel. It's about creating emotions -- a variety of emotions, at a variety of levels and intensities. It's about guiding, indeed manipulating, the audience's train of thought -- what they anticipate, and how they'll react to what you make occur at any given moment.

                              Of course, it can't come out as overtly manipulative or calculating. But most of the best writers and directors are very aware of how they want the audience to be thinking and feeling at every moment, at every beat and event of the story.

                              For a good writer, every event is considered not just in terms of "Is this a causal link? A reaction to a prior event, and a cause that leads to a subsequent one?" and "Does this advance the story?" but also in terms of "What's the audience going to think if we do *this*? What will they be feeling if we do *that*?"

                              Just as we have to be in the heads of our characters, we have to be in the heads of the collective audience, too.

                              Thus, in a thriller, we'll be thinking, "Let's scare 'em!" or "Let's provide a release here ... by comedy, or romance?" "Let's make 'em sad here!" "Let's raise their hopes ... and then dash them!" "Let's have a triumph ... (but the savoring and celebration won't last long!)" "Now let's give him an even *bigger* problem!"

                              It all has to be consistent with the spine of the story -- the central concept and the theme -- and with the characters involved, and the tone of the story, and it must be motivated and credible. But a good writer can work within those boundaries -- and does so, willingly.

                              At any rate, the really good thrillers -- and many other kinds of movies -- were clearly created with a view to making the audience think and feel in particular ways.

                              Jeff Newman
                              storynotes.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X