Michael Hauge's Theory In "Writing Screenplays That Sell"



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

  • Michael Hauge's Theory In "Writing Screenplays That Sell"

    This is a great 101 book but I take exception to something that he wrote and I'm not sure if I believe it.

    First he talks about different kinds of characters like Hero, Reflection, and Love Interest.

    Then on page 63, he says, "A character cannot fall into more than one category."

    Then on page 64 when talking about dual-hero stories, he says, "...each of the heroes may serve as nemesis, reflection, or romance for any of the other heroes."

    So in his view, a hero can serve also as a love interest or reflection to another hero in the story but only the hero can venture over into the other categories.

    What do you think about what he writes and can you find examples which prove otherwise?

  • #2
    Re: Michael Hauge's Theory In "Writing Screenplays That Sell"

    Seems rather contradictory. But then I don't really subscribe to the notion that characters are one thing and never the other. And, what examples did he give for movies with dual heroes? Off the top of my head Shanghai Noon? I hate it when these 'gurus' state absolutes which don't really stand up. You can't do this? You can't do that? aaargh! Writing is what you feel. if you 'feel' the character you don't have to concern yourself with definitions.

    I haven't read the book so I don't know what he means by ''Reflection'' but it sounds pretty passive.

    I'd like to give some examples but I've really really really really got to get back to work.


    • #3
      Re: Michael Hauge's Theory In "Writing Screenplays That Sell"

      i couldn't get through this book a couple years back. truly. it's just a bunch of blahblahblah for chaching-chaching, written by a guy who's...never sold a screenplay


      • #4
        Re: Michael Hauge's Theory In "Writing Screenplays That Sell"

        It took me awhile to think about what he might be talking about, but it makes sense.

        The hero is the main character. In SHREK, that would be Shrek.

        The reflection character is often the best friend. You use the back-and-forth between those two characters to show the difference between them. Shrek's reflection character is Donkey. Where Shrek's problem is that he's cranky and pushes everyone away because he's afraid to acknowledge he's actually lonely and needs love, Donkey is talkative and wants company all the time.

        Princess Fiona is the Romance.

        Lord Farquaad is the nemesis.

        Though there's a strong romantic subplot in Shrek, the main story is about Shrek, the hero, on a quest to get the fairy tale creatures out of his swamp. Each of the other characters has one distinct role.

        In a true romantic comedy, love is the main goal, and we often tell the story more equally between the man and the woman's POV, so they're both "The Hero." In a lot of romantic comedies, best friends, or sparring partners at work, become lovers.

        In an adventure movie with two equal leads, they fight the bad guys together, but they might also be romantic partners, or they might be best friends.


        • #5
          Re: Michael Hauge's Theory In "Writing Screenplays That Sell"

          This was the third-or maybe fourth- screenwriting book I read. Not too bad, but I found scriptsecrets.net after that. I read two more books on the craft from then on, and probably won't buy another one.

          Works best for me to not read too deeply into what a lot of these authors come to court with. There's a cloudy hypothetical layer over-top the actual point a lot.