A good script vs. a sellable script

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A good script vs. a sellable script

    Right. So. I am a writer, but I also work as an assistant in the industry, which has given me a taste of both sides of the coin. Namely, the process of writing coverage for incoming scripts.

    I've gotta say, that a solid 75% of the scripts are of the quality where I wish I could stop reading after the 2nd page. Unfortunately, at least in the places I've worked, that's not really acceptable. So no matter how bad a script may be, I have to read the whole thing, then write a summary and notes on it. It's a miserable thing to have to do, over and over again. It absolutely does cause me to approach each new script with trepidation. And I can say with complete certainty that other readers deal with this too, and as such approach new scripts with more disdain and preconceived notions than they should. Because just on a probability basis, that new script is going to suck.

    So the question then is, how do you counteract that?

    First, start quickly. I don't mean the first ten pages. I mean, page one, scene one. Do it however you want. Have a character bleeding out in the backseat of a car, introducing some mysterious object, being chased by guys dressed like unicorns... just something, whatever it is. Otherwise, your script blends in like all the other crappy, boring scripts that cross our computer screens.

    Secondly, be weird. It amazes me just how many scripts I've read that have zero original elements. The characters, the way the characters are introduced, the plot, the dialogue, the situations... everything feels like the script I had just read before it. If somebody told me there was one person writing all these scripts, I'd believe them.

    Case in point, I was reading a script a couple weeks ago that after the first few pages made me think, "Here we go again." Until I got a few pages in, and there was a character that only the protagonist could (apparently) see doing a kind of crab-walk against the wall in the lobby of an office building. It grabbed my attention, because it was weird and different and original.

    The third thing I will say, is that the reality is if you get a read request, the first line of defense so to speak is going to be an unpaid intern. If the completely unqualified intern who reads your script doesn't like it, it's unlikely to go anywhere. There was one production company I worked at in the past where the head of the company would read everything that came in himself, but that's not the norm. Realistically, he only did that because he's towards the end of his career and has little going on, so nothing better to do with his time.

    My point here though, is that to write a script that is going to impress these interns, you need to follow the BS rules that really only apply to tentpoles. As in, likeable characters, definitive act structure with turning points, plot driven, etc. It sucks, but it's reality based on my experience. If Tarantino never made Pulp Fiction, and you submitted that exact shooting script to some random management company, I guarantee you'd never hear back because they'd say things like, "No plot. Unlikeable characters. Offensive language. Confusing structure. The gimp scene is just weird and unnecessary. AND WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BRIEFCASE!" Obviously, those things are all dead wrong. But, it really doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. They hold all the power.

    Finally, if you actually do get yourself to the point where you've had your script read and got notes back on how to improve it. Take that seriously. I really can't put into words just how frustrating it is to see writers who have gotten this opportunity squander it with half-assed revisions that do not fix any of the major issues. Especially when they send the 8th revision back one week after getting the notes. You would think that this only applies to a few cases, but it's actually the majority. It's funny, but the guy who I've seen take the revisions most seriously was actually blind. To this day, I don't know how he handled it. But the new version didn't come back for about two months, and it was a totally different script. Be that guy.

    Anyway, I'd just like to reiterate that I'm not saying these things are required for a good script. They are required for getting through the morass that is the development process though. It's a completely broken process, but it's not changing any time soon. So, get used to it and write your scripts accordingly, or don't quit your day jobs.

  • #2
    Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

    Originally posted by juunit View Post

    Right. So.
    This just made me read your entire post as if you were Hugh Grant in anything he's ever done. Very funny. Welcome to the boards.

    "... My point here though, is that to write a script that is going to impress these interns, you need to follow the BS rules that really only apply to tentpoles. As in, likeable characters, definitive act structure with turning points, plot driven, etc. It sucks, but it's reality based on my experience...."

    -- Based on the above bolded section, my question is, that is fine for the interns, but doesn't that immediately nix a script's chances of going anywhere, anyway, when the "higher-ups" read it and it reads like every other "BS tentpole rules" thing and they want something fresher?

    Oh, and be prepared for like a hundred writers to suddenly PM you and ask you to read and pass along their script. Ha.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

      To be honest, I feel this frustration and I don't know what to do about it because I gravitate to writing stuff that doesn't always follow a straightforward structure. But I'm beginning to realise, more and more, that there ARE rules. And they apply differently to different people.

      If you're a nobody starting out, it seems like you have to follow these basic rules and write something relatively straightforward to get past the gate keepers, most of whom haven't read or written enough to really grow as writers. By the time they do, they won't be doing this crappy job anymore, it'll be some other kid. You know they actually have 'script coverage courses' now, where you can learn how to be a script reader. I imagine people being handed out checklists to match with save the cat beat sheets.

      Yet if you do write something like that and get past the gatekeepers, its going to be hard to stand out when the people who actually make decisions read your work.

      There's obviously a magical middle ground SOMEWHERE. Where you follow all the rules but manage to make it different enough that you can get your foot in the door. But how you do that and still stay true to yourself and to the story you want to tell, the kind of stories that inspire you... I have no idea. I guess those are the scripts that win contests.

      I am really thankful for your post OP, I hope it helps to spark some discussion here.

      But it's not just young readers sadly. I read a script from someone who works for a European film board as a reader. A woman in her thirties. It was quite possibly the worst script I've ever read. I did my best to give constructive feedback. But the one thing I couldn't get out of my mind was the thought that the gatekeepers are mostly people like her.

      P.S. I tell a lie. There is a lot of stuff out there that is amazing and original and still manages to follow conventional structure. Pretty much any film that was a box office success AND critically acclaimed. That's the Lagrange point we need to be aiming for.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

        Not necessarily. The interns are obviously unqualified to say what should be made and what shouldn't. However, the higher ups are too. The reality is, nobody has the recipe to the secret sauce. Even the Spielbergs, Eastwoods and Scorseses have multiple flops on their resumes. Although I would say that getting your script directly to a producer might make the generic rules less prevalent. For example, the same guy I mentioned in the original post worked on a major feature where they had to shoot in water tanks. So when he got a script for an underwater treasure hunting movie, he was all over it (even though the script was garbage and didn't follow those tenets.)

        I mean, I have heard of the occasional exec who looks at a script that has the inciting incident on page 10, the act one turning point on page 30, and so on, and that they sour on the script for that reason, that it feels too cookie cutter, to the letter and therefore a no-go. But I think the really important thing to take away is that nobody knows what they're doing in Hollywood, and most of them are aware of that fact. Which is another factor in the whole reading process by the way. Once one person either likes or dislikes a script, it influences the next reader in a groupthink kind of way. So, worry about getting beyond the intern first. If you don't, it's all moot.

        I'd say that the rule following is even more prevalent in television than it is in film. TV shows can have a very rigid structure, so if your goal is to get on staff or have any kind of career in TV, you absolutely have to prove your ability to follow that structure.

        I don't necessarily think that writing a script this way is mutually exclusive from originality and quality. I mentioned Tarantino because I think he personifies it more so than anyone else making stuff today. If there was one film I could recommend to someone to teach them how to write a script which will get them somewhere, it would be RESERVOIR DOGS. It starts fast, the stakes are high and yes, it can be done inexpensively, which is a factor. It's just logic, really. If you write a movie that's going to cost $150m to make and another $75m to market, you have about six potential buyers (not even factoring in such a massive investment on somebody with no track record). Compare that to a $5m indie, where you've got a solid one hundred, legitimate landing spots. Or more.

        Yeah, I mean, I don't really have the answer of how to do it. And anyone who claims they do is full of it. I think like many other things, you either have the talent or you don't. Not everyone can play center in the NBA. Not everyone can be a Hollywood writer. It's just the way it is.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

          I really don't like the "start fast" rule because so many good scripts don't do it. Guardians of the Galaxy started slow, but it was still interesting. Die Hard was super-slow. Look at Life of Pi -- it started so bloody slow. But his experience in school with the name Pissing and dealing with it was one of the most funnest openings I've ever seen. I loved it -- and I write sci-fi action scripts!

          I would argue what you need isn't a mystery, weird unicorns or car chases; just something interesting. Good writers can make anything feel interesting.
          I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

            Originally posted by FoxHound View Post
            Guardians of the Galaxy started slow, but it was still interesting.
            I may be misremembering, but are we talking about the same movie that opens on a kid whose mom is dying of cancer, and by the top of Page 3 has him abducted by aliens, leading into a riff on the opening sequence of Raiders, followed by a superhero spaceship chase?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

              Originally posted by Staircaseghost View Post
              I may be misremembering, but are we talking about the same movie that opens on a kid whose mom is dying of cancer, and by the top of Page 3 has him abducted by aliens, leading into a riff on the opening sequence of Raiders, followed by a superhero spaceship chase?
              A dying mother in a hospital isn't a fast start. And the tomb scene wasn't exactly spectacular. Contrast this opening with Avengers 2 -- now THAT is a fast start.
              I'm never wrong. Reality is just stubborn.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

                I enjoyed all those, as I enjoy many films that start slow. In Europe, even today, the typical act structure is more of a 60-30-30 split than our 30-60-30 split. The beginning to LE GRANDE BELLEZZA spits in the face of everything I'm saying here.

                Only DIE HARD was written by a brand new writer though, and that was in 1988 (and really, earlier than that, as it was in development for a while and the novel came out in '79). Jeb Stuart was also re-written on that and like GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and LIFE OF PI, it was an existing IP.

                I'd say what you need to do in the beginning of your "make it big" script is grab the audiences' attention. If you can come up with some fresh way to do that, then great. It's just, even if you really do have something great, a slow beginning can kill you because you've already lost the reader and they glaze over the rest of your brilliance.

                Just imagine being a reader for Nicholl. They had over 7,500 scripts last year.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

                  This is a good post in that it makes good points and gives one something to think about. But it's a bit misleading in regards to the question of "good" versus "sellable."

                  I have done coverage for a major agency and the experience has felt a lot like the OP describes. I have also done coverage for some contests and found the percentage of scripts that it's torturous to slog through in those cases much higher than 75%. I'd take those odds any day in contest reading.

                  But I've also worked for buyers -- places that the agencies and production companies approach with material that's been through the vetting process, and often has significant attachments, or has been written by working successful writers, and that material is probably 90% pretty damn good. And it doesn't have to contain quirky elements early on, or start super-fast, or be freakishly original (sometimes it does, but not always or even often)...because it's just good -- often really good. Just plain good storytelling and great characters and dialogue and "voice." The "sellable" question in that case comes down to largely subjective opinions on the likely budget, past performance of similar films in terms of subject and/or tone, appeal of roles insofar as actors are concerned, and so forth.

                  My point is, at that level it's mostly good writing, and it's not as simple as following (or departing from) the formulas described by the OP. And don't think it's mostly a case of sour grapes that your script isn't getting traction, or that all you need is access and connections to make it. The difference between good writing and everything else really is clear, and at the same time it's not something you can just point to easily and fix (this the crap rewrites the OP complains about). A good script can be largely unsellable but still get a writer attention and assignment work, because it can hold its own in the pile and is a pleasure to read regardless of whether anyone will ever buy it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

                    Originally posted by juunit View Post

                    ... a slow beginning can kill you because you've already lost the reader and they glaze over the rest of your brilliance.

                    I think your points are valid. And you don't even seem hostile and filled with hatred the way readers often do. I hope you stick around.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

                      Originally posted by juunit View Post
                      Right. So. I am a writer, but I also work as an assistant in the industry, which has given me a taste of both sides of the coin. Namely, the process of writing coverage for incoming scripts.

                      I've gotta say, that a solid 75% of the scripts are of the quality where I wish I could stop reading after the 2nd page. Unfortunately, at least in the places I've worked, that's not really acceptable. So no matter how bad a script may be, I have to read the whole thing, then write a summary and notes on it. It's a miserable thing to have to do, over and over again. It absolutely does cause me to approach each new script with trepidation. And I can say with complete certainty that other readers deal with this too, and as such approach new scripts with more disdain and preconceived notions than they should. Because just on a probability basis, that new script is going to suck.

                      So the question then is, how do you counteract that?

                      First, start quickly. I don't mean the first ten pages. I mean, page one, scene one. Do it however you want. Have a character bleeding out in the backseat of a car, introducing some mysterious object, being chased by guys dressed like unicorns... just something, whatever it is. Otherwise, your script blends in like all the other crappy, boring scripts that cross our computer screens.

                      Secondly, be weird. It amazes me just how many scripts I've read that have zero original elements. The characters, the way the characters are introduced, the plot, the dialogue, the situations... everything feels like the script I had just read before it. If somebody told me there was one person writing all these scripts, I'd believe them.

                      Case in point, I was reading a script a couple weeks ago that after the first few pages made me think, "Here we go again." Until I got a few pages in, and there was a character that only the protagonist could (apparently) see doing a kind of crab-walk against the wall in the lobby of an office building. It grabbed my attention, because it was weird and different and original.

                      The third thing I will say, is that the reality is if you get a read request, the first line of defense so to speak is going to be an unpaid intern. If the completely unqualified intern who reads your script doesn't like it, it's unlikely to go anywhere. There was one production company I worked at in the past where the head of the company would read everything that came in himself, but that's not the norm. Realistically, he only did that because he's towards the end of his career and has little going on, so nothing better to do with his time.

                      My point here though, is that to write a script that is going to impress these interns, you need to follow the BS rules that really only apply to tentpoles. As in, likeable characters, definitive act structure with turning points, plot driven, etc. It sucks, but it's reality based on my experience. If Tarantino never made Pulp Fiction, and you submitted that exact shooting script to some random management company, I guarantee you'd never hear back because they'd say things like, "No plot. Unlikeable characters. Offensive language. Confusing structure. The gimp scene is just weird and unnecessary. AND WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BRIEFCASE!" Obviously, those things are all dead wrong. But, it really doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. They hold all the power.

                      Finally, if you actually do get yourself to the point where you've had your script read and got notes back on how to improve it. Take that seriously. I really can't put into words just how frustrating it is to see writers who have gotten this opportunity squander it with half-assed revisions that do not fix any of the major issues. Especially when they send the 8th revision back one week after getting the notes. You would think that this only applies to a few cases, but it's actually the majority. It's funny, but the guy who I've seen take the revisions most seriously was actually blind. To this day, I don't know how he handled it. But the new version didn't come back for about two months, and it was a totally different script. Be that guy.

                      Anyway, I'd just like to reiterate that I'm not saying these things are required for a good script. They are required for getting through the morass that is the development process though. It's a completely broken process, but it's not changing any time soon. So, get used to it and write your scripts accordingly, or don't quit your day jobs.
                      Yeah, but originality and creativity trump the "rules".

                      If a script is brilliant and compelling it will make people passionate about buying it, producing it, and acting it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

                        Originally posted by juunit View Post
                        Right. So. I am a writer ...
                        Yours is a well written and informative post on this topic. Thank you.

                        For a while now, I've wondered about readers for production companies and contests, what are their education levels, their background, how they got the job (ought there be a test?), about how their skills, as well as those they lack, so greatly impacts what is promoted up the film industry food chain. About screenplay readers in general I also wonder whether or not there is a direct correlation between the falling national literacy rate and increasing movie production of spectacle over substance. It would also be disheartening to discover that the vast majority of readers today consider screenwriting how-to books in the vein of Save The Cat as reverently as one would a bible, yet it may be so, which might account for all the so-so scripts of predictable sameness, some of which make it all the way upstream to spawn others like themselves.

                        If you offered coverage for hire — as if you hadn't enough to do already — I'm certain you would do well. Nevertheless, thank you for a brief peek of the thoughts of a qualified reader.
                        Last edited by Clint Hill; 06-30-2015, 09:39 AM.
                        “Nothing is what rocks dream about” ― Aristotle

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

                          I agree with pretty much everyone's response. Thanks!

                          Midnite

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

                            Originally posted by figment View Post
                            I think your points are valid. And you don't even seem hostile and filled with hatred the way readers often do. I hope you stick around.
                            Oh, I certainly have a strongly negative opinion of Hollywood, the people in it and how it operates. Boy do I have some stories. I've made my bed though, so I figure it's best to just roll with the punches at this point. Plus, I'm sure if I get anywhere and start making money/being respected that my outlook will change.

                            And yeah, I think 75% is the number of scripts where I don't even want to get beyond page two. The percentage of scripts I've read that are truly good is probably under 2%.

                            I do just want to reiterate that this is what I believe is necessary for a writer trying to break in to stand out. It's not 100% and it's definitely not a requirement of a good script. There are people who have broken in without writing scripts this way. I just think doing these things really helps your stuff stick out.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A good script vs. a sellable script

                              I think what a lot of people seem to forget, is that we're dealing with a highly subjective industry.

                              Yes. 75% of all screenplays are just hands down awful. And as writers, we should be fully aware that 75% of what we write is awful. That's why there's rewriting.

                              Then you get to that 25%. Scripts that range from Good to Great. But the thing is, not every single person is going to rate those scripts at the same place on that scale.

                              Sure, the OP put in the things that make a script stand out.. to him/her. There are just as many readers who like a slow build or scripts firmly grounded in reality without any "weird" moments.

                              Even if you write the greatest script you're ever going to write, that doesn't mean it's going to be universally praised. Think of your favorite movie. I'm sure you know someone who thinks it's a pile of crap. And just because you've written an amazing script doesn't mean that it's going to be sold. There are a million different reasons that people buy or don't buy scripts, and good writing is only part of that.

                              I know that we're all here because we love writing and dream of having our words translated to the screen (whatever screen), but writing a spec script shouldn't be about trying to figure out some secret code that gets you through to the studio exec or some high-profile director. All you can do is write the best possible script and do everything in your power to get it into the hands of the right people at the right time.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X