So about these odd images of furniture going up, my cell phone doesn’t want to email me photos but will post them to tumblr and I’m selling some furniture right before a move. Sorry ‘bout that, I know the furniture looks a little random. Oh —
And if you are in L.A. and are looking for a desk or a shelf unit, the Craigslist page is at
I know two people who set out, purposefully, to write “marketable” scripts. Andrew Marlowe, who wrote Air Force One, and myself. I wrote Excess Baggage. As I understand it, and I am playing fast and loose with details here because I don’t know all of them, Andrew decided it was time to break out of the pack. Doing that meant writing something someone would have to buy. Wouldn’t be able to say no to. Would have to buy. So he looked around, and at the time what was hot was Die Hard. Everyone was crazy for Die Hard. Die Hard on a boat, Die Hard on a train. Die Hard on a bus, Die Hard on the moon. There was even a story around at the time that someone, obviously unfamiliar with Die Hard but catching on to the concept fast, had pitched, Die Hard in a building. (If you don’t know Die Hard, the joke there is, Die Hard is in a building.) Bottom line, everyone back then was mad forDie Hard. That’s what was selling. So Andrew thought, What hasn’t anybody done yet? And came up with Die Hard on Air Force One. I don’t know how many scripts Andrew had written at the time. I know he’s a damn good writer. I’ve read him. And he was an award-winning writer. He won a Nicholl Fellowship from the Academy. But now he is an extremely well known and well paid writer. (Today Andrew is the creator of and showrunner on Castle.) Because he got methodical about it, looked around, saw what was selling, and came up with a concept for an idea that was hot at the time. And better than anyone else’s because it went just one step further than anyone else’s. Other people had come up with Die Hard on a plane. Andrew Marlowe came up with Die Hard on Air Force One. And it sold —-
[click the above orange link to continue reading]
So you’ve written your screenplay, and you’ve got a terrific, nail-biting ending.
You’ve written your logline.
You’re working on your synopsis, and you’ve read all the articles you can find on writing a synopsis.
There’s conflicting advice about whether to reveal the great ending of your screenplay in this tool.
Some writers think you should only tease, and some believe if you want to sell, you gotta give away the ending. Still others think you should forget all about this whole screenwriting business and go back to retail, but of course you’re not going to listen to them.
So which should it be? Should you reveal your ending in your synopsis?
Or should you tease the reader?
This is one of the reasons writing a synopsis can be as hard as writing the screenplay itself. The temptation to give a blow-by-blow of the plot can be overwhelming. At the same time, you can really work up a cold sweat trying to figure out how much of your story you should reveal in the synopsis.
It may help you to think of your synopsis as a marketing tool.
A well-written synopsis has the essence of the story boiled down into a few paragraphs. In movie terms, you can think of the logline as your teaser, and the synopsis as your trailer. You wouldn’t reveal the ending of your movie in the trailer. But consider this: an audience is going to see a movie for enjoyment. The only reason they’re in the theatre is to get lost in the world you created. They’re agreeing to be teased.
The people to whom you’re trying to sell your screenplay, though, are the people who are going to make the movie. They’re looking at the possibility of spending thousands (possibly millions) of dollars on your idea. They’re looking for a well-written story with a good ending. If you feel you have to hide the ending to entice them … maybe you’ve got a weak ending —-
[click the above orange link to continue reading]
When time is short it’s a good idea to be succinct.
Time is short this week. I am up to my eyes in business plans and marketing strategies. Huzzah!
So, this week, I want to write about the dangers of over plotting. In basic terms, this is when a writer looks for all their answers on the beat sheet, instead of in the script.
I know that is a fairly contentious statement. These days, the fashion is for writers to nail their plot on file cards, or on a beat sheet, so they are sure that they are hitting the main structural points. That isn’t a practise I disagree with, I do the same myself.
However, the temptation when creating a beat sheet, is to over think and overwrite the structure. In particular, there is a temptation to not just identify the core of theme and situation of a sequence, but also to figure out what the characters do when confronted with this new dilemma. Personally, I think that kind of “solution plotting” can be a mistake.
For me, each sequence in a beat sheet is written as a problem for the characters to solve… but, the actual solving of the problem, I believe, should happen in the script. The drama comes out of the character’s unique reactions to the situation.
What this means in practical terms is that there are creative advantages to going into a scene with a dilemma for the characters involved, but without a solution already outlined. The scene remains open and problematic as it is being written, forcing the writer to reach out to the characters to find their own solutions to the problem. When you think about it, it makes real sense, because it is the characters who are interacting with the plot. They should be in a position, where they have to find some sense or solution out of the given situation rather than merely flapping their lips until they hit the point marked “exit” —-
[click the above link to continue reading]
That’s simple enough, isn’t it? “I will not read your fucking script.” What’s not clear about that? There’s nothing personal about it, nothing loaded, nothing complicated. I simply have no interest in reading your fucking screenplay. None whatsoever.
If that seems unfair, I’ll make you a deal. In return for you not asking me to read your fucking script, I will not ask you to wash my fucking car, or take my fucking picture, or represent me in fucking court, or take out my fucking gall bladder, or whatever the fuck it is that you do for a living.
You’re a lovely person. Whatever time we’ve spent together has, I’m sure, been pleasurable for both of us. I quite enjoyed that conversation we once had about structure and theme, and why Sergio Leone is the greatest director who ever lived. Yes, we bonded, and yes, I wish you luck in all your endeavors, and it would thrill me no end to hear that you had sold your screenplay, and that it had been made into the best movie since Godfather Part II.
But I will not read your fucking script.
At this point, you should walk away, firm in your conviction that I’m a dick. But if you’re interested in growing as a human being and recognizing that it is, in fact, you who is the dick in this situation, please read on.
Yes. That’s right. I called you a dick. Because you created this situation. You put me in this spot where my only option is to acquiesce to your demands or be the bad guy. That, my friend, is the very definition of a dick move.
I was recently cornered by a young man of my barest acquaintance —-
[click the above orange link to continue reading]
Friend’s piece Funny Like a Guy (hidden behind a paywall) is an overview of Faris career to this point. But what it does—I believe intentionally—is lay out how bad it is for women in comedy. And Friend is able to get people on the record to talk about the misogyny and sexism that is pervasive in this world.
I’ve been hard on Anna Faris because of Observe and Report and The House Bunny, but after reading the piece I have a much better appreciation of her. Part of the problem is that comedy is very hard for women today. I grew up on the comedy of Bette Midler, Goldie Hawn, Madeline Kahn, Gilda Radner and Lily Tomlin among many others. There was no problem with women being funny and self-deprecating in the 70s and 80s. These women were funny not just to women, they were funny to everyone and men and women went to see their movies together.
But comedy has clearly changed as has movie going has changed and now we live in a world where men won’t go see anything that stars women especially in comedies —
[click the above orange link to continue reading]
by Melissa Silverstein on April 9, 2009
I have pretty much ignored the new Seth Rogen film Observe and Report coming out tomorrow. I saw him on the Daily Show earlier this week and all Jon Stewart talked about was his weight loss, and on SNL last weekend they made fun of the fact that he is in the second mall security guard comedy this season. Yes, you read it right. This is the second mall security guard film.
Over the last day I’ve started to notice some disturbing posts about the film and date rape. So I forced myself to watch the trailer and there for all the world to see is Seth Rogen raping the passed out Anna Faris (a woman who is supposed to protect from a streaker.) She is clearly not able to make a conscious decision, her eyes are closed and there is a trail of vomit on the pillow. She is being raped but since it’s a comedy they can mitigate it by giving Rogen a moment where his brain goes huh maybe she’s unconscious and stops pumping briefly only to hear Faris shout out something like “Why are you stopping motherf***er?” Like that makes it ok. Passed out screaming implies consent. Bad premise.
I’m just wondering what some guys will think about when they come out of this film. We all know there is so much sexual violence perpetrated against women that having a film like this treat this epidemic so lightly is shocking.
And how can a film like this get an R rating? Depicting sexual violence as a comedic vehicle is just not ok. Seth Rogen used to be a stoner schlub and now he’s a stalking, date raping mall security guard. He’s going to play a super hero next in one of the comic book movies so his career is on the fast track.
Both Rogen and Faris have been offering excuses for the film and with all due respect Farris needs to seriously consider her career because funny and stupid (The House Bunny) is one thing, but making fun of being raped is in a whole different category.
To her credit even Faris thought the script would be toned down:
…when I read the script, I thought, “Well, this is Warner Brothers. This is a studio movie, so this is all gonna be softened up. It’s a comedy, right?” So when we were shooting it, even the date-rape scene—or as I refer to it, “The Tender Love-Making Scene”—I just thought, “We’ll shoot it, but it’s not gonna be in the movie. I don’t have to worry about that one.” And yet there it is. (H/T Tiger Beatdown)
[click the above orange link to continue reading]
Kevin Smith
Writer/filmmaker Kevin Smith (Red State) dropped some heavy words of wisdom about writers today.
Smith responded, as he normally does to his 1.7 million followers via Twitter, this time to @amydezellar, who inquired, “I need a locker-room style pep talk about continuing to write.”
Smith, not one for the 140-character limit of Twitter, went on a multi-tweet “Smonologue” (a term he recently coined to coincide with his Smodcast Network) on the power and the importance of the writer. No matter what you may think of Smith’s filmwork, the man can certainly preach a good sermon. Here’s his response in full:
Writing is the closest any man or woman will ever come to playing God (or A god). Some will say childbirth, but that’s giving life, not playing God. Some will argue the cruel play at angry gods, but any animal can inflict pain; cruelty is not playing God, it’s playing Man —
[click the above orange link to continue reading]
First, some terms defined:
What is a Query Letter?
A query letter is usually a one page letter or email that you send out to agents, managers, and producers, etc. to try and entice them to read your script.
What is a Logline?
A logline is usually the first thing in a query letter and is the most vital piece of the message. It is usually 1 or 2 sentences long.
You query can rock all night… n’ party everyday
Okay, so let’s talk about query letters. First of all, the most important question is: are they still relevant? Do people still read them? And in what format? It’s important to first understand this aspect of the process in order to better write the query, and better your chances of a response. And as with everything else, it all depends on who you’re sending it to, and what your goal is.
First, are they still relevant and do people still read them? Absolutely. If you send them to the right types of people. Let me give you an example: if you email a query letter to a Steven Spielberg or Scott Rudin, it’s more than likely not getting past the assistant or intern, who upon seeing the email, will more than likely delete it without reading. High powered industry players get thousands upon thousands of these emails every year, and if they stopped to read any of them, they wouldn’t be able to do the actual work that makes them the megabucks. So while I won’t say “don’t bother sending it to high powered industry players”, just know that it’s an incredibly tiny chance that they’ll even read it. For every story about Brett Ratner mailing a letter to Steven Spielberg to help finance his student film, there’s thousands of other stories of people who never even got their mail/email read. Remember this snail mail thing for later though – we’re going to get into that in a bit —
[click the above orange link to continue reading]
