42 Responses to “Screenwriting structure Part 9 your first 10 pages”

1. Elver on Sunday: 23 December 2007|2003

   Unk, I could kiss you. Your screenwriting posts are so damn awesome. But I wouldn’t go further than kissing, unless there’d be enough chemistry between us to make me experiment with my sexual orientation. Assuming you’re male, that is.

   Now! Back to the topic. The problem with frontloading is that sometimes it ends up a bait and switch. First ten minutes: world’s awesomest dialog, cool camera moves, special effects to make one’s jaw drop, and all that. The rest: boring as all hell. And sometimes it’s the worst kind of boring. Not boring enough to walk out, but painful nonetheless. In the worst possible case it feels like some Hollywood legend got paid $200k to write the first 10 pages and then they brought in a guy off the street for $10k to do the rest.

   But as we’re on the topic, what about doing a fake inciting incident in the first 10 pages? Something that would lead to the real one, but one that’s of little consequence.

   In the screenplay I’m currently working on there’s a series of incidents, increasing in power and importance, that logically follow one another and deliver us to page 50 when the script takes a breather and the protagonist starts putting his life back together. No explosions, just people talking, being selfish, and hurting each other.

2. Unk on Sunday: 23 December 2007|2056

   Elver,

   Thanks for the kind words? LOL. Sorry but no matter HOW MUCH CHEMISTRY there might be — it takes two to experiment and I AIN’T no scientist.

   Having said that…

   You’re right about the bait and switch comment… So the good news is that you’ve already taught yourself NOT TO DO THAT!

   YAY! (that’s about as far as I can experiment)

   And what’s even better is that between both of these comments, we’ve taught somebody else not to bait and switch.

   Once you reach that level with the first 10 pages, you’ve HOPEFULLY decided at that point to keep the writing consistent and not backslide into boring.

   Is there such a thing as a FAKE INCITING INCIDENT? LOL.

   Hmmmm. I don’t think so. If it disrupts the status quo then how can it be fake? It might not be the type of inciting incident we may be expecting but shit — I’m all for that so keep writing!

   In other words, keep doing what you’re doing. It sounds like you’re attending to the rising conflict so it would seem to me at this point — your structure is definitely on track.

   Good comment!

   Unk

3. chris on Monday: 24 December 2007|0815

   The first ten pages ARE important. You must grab and hold the reader and all that. In fact, once you’re over THAT hurdle…

   …you just gotta do it for 80-110 MORE pages.

   Happy Christmas All.

4. Ryan on Monday: 24 December 2007|0818

   What all goes into those first ten pages….

   Well Unk, since the inciting incident is the first proponent of change I think that’s it’s important to start there, in terms of looking at the structure. I know, I know, a proponent is a PERSON who puts forward a proposition or proposal (for change); a person who argues in favor of; an advocate (for change); a person who supports a cause or doctrine; adherent (of change). What I’m saying is, as a writer, I find it helpful to view many of these structural elements as characters – people.

   Off the top of my head I can think of two ways that Ms. Inciting Incident chooses to attack. First, she strikes before any other structural element is even introduced. This attack is usually found in those action pics where the protag is sucked into action. The school bus explodes on its way to the embassy. Cut to our protag in line at Mr. Donut, scratching his head, unable to decide on the same ol’ tired choices – unaware that his quiet life has already exploded and it’s only a matter of time before he’ll be forced to burn calories.

   The other attack mode waits until the audience is all warm and snuggly, familiar with this new world and its inhabitants, before it strikes. This mode is a little trickier for the writer b/c we have more choices and calls on our ability to balance. We have to engage at the same time we set up. We have to walk and chew gum at the same time. We also have to pay close attention to where exactly we are placing the dominos that are about to fall.

   In Unk structure 8, you made me think of how some writers ignore genre and simply try to set their dominos up in ornate patterns; go so far as to paint their dominos interesting colors, bedazzle them with gems, blast their favorite Guitar Hero track, set up a lazer show, knock the domino over with a flame that’s lit by a gerbil that gets eaten by a snake that triggers a marble etcetera. So I guess it’s fair to say that, suitable logic be applied when setting up the first ten. Logic that suits the action, action that suits the genre, genre that suits the story, story that suits the writer.

   The world has to be setup first ten.

   Uh, the gait of the protag, his disposition, has to hit first ten.

   Oh, style, voice. That has to establish itself (and remain consistent)

   Er, that first crescendo, that moment where the character rises to some kind of action to address whatever problem has risen. However, it’s just that crescendo; that first rise. That’s kind of where we often see HOW he fails. Toby McSpidey failing to swoop in on whats-her-face, allowing his best friend to woo her with HIS line about how Spiders change colors, adapt to their surrounding as a defense mechanism. The empty space in characters lives that beg to be filled.

   I know I’m missing some. I can feel it. I hate that feeling.

   Nag nag nag

5. Joshua James on Monday: 24 December 2007|1015

   Competitive?

   Me?

   Competitive?

   Heh-heh.

   Well . . . if anything, I’ve been told I’m TOO COMPETITIVE, heh-heh.

   It’s not what I myself say, it’s only what I been told.

   I always wanna jump higher and higher walls. Because, well . . . it’s fun - LOL!

   Great post, Unk. It sparked all sorts of juicy stuff in my brain.

   I do think it does really depend, though, on the angle of the story . . . and in some of the newbie scripts I read, it seems they think it’s gotta be some big explosion or something really huge . . . and sometimes that is cool, but for me it’s all about the people we’re meeting, regardless of whether or not there’s a blimp crashing or not. It varies with genre, I think, action movies always seem to work best when they begin that way, but . . . lemme think a minute.

   Great beginnings to movies . . . hmmm.

   In a crime thriller, you have something really cool happen, you bet . . . but sometimes it can just be something simple (Ocean’s 11, the good one, Danny gets out of jail, in Collateral, Jamie picks up a passenger and ends up liking her a lot, unlike his next passenger) - so sometimes you start with a killing or hijacking, but sometimes one doesn’t.

   A great example, if I recall, is 3 DAYS OF THE CONDOR, where we see book guy Redford on his drab, daily routine and he goes out for lunch and comes back and guess what? Everyone be dead . . . heh-heh. First ten minutes, if I recall correctly. A great start and a great film.

   Dramas and stuff, the teaser varies, don’t you think? I always liked CAST AWAY a lot, which begins with with a package arriving and Tom lecturing (no, ranting) about how we live or die by time . . . but most of the time, it’s really about introductions to these people and whatever possible internal conflicts they may have.

   Comedies it varies wildly, and it depends on the comedies . . . in NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM, we just meet Ben and find out he’s afraid his son thinks he’s an employed loser and so he takes a low-level job as a night watchmen. That’s it, that’s the beginning.

   SUPERBAD - really out there, I’ll watch it again but it seems to me that the inciting event is the boys deciding to buy booze for the girls, but I’m pretty sure it ain’t in the first ten minutes. The rest of the time is spent getting to know their world.

   Same for KNOCKED UP, which the first act ends with the couple having sex . . . the first fifteen minutes are spent showing their contrasting worlds (she on a career track as a host for E, he smoking pot and planning an internet porn site).

   But a great example is GROUNDHOG DAY, where its established that Phil is a prick and hates being in that little town of Puxatoonie, or whatever . . . it’s done pretty quickly . . . but the pattern that is set is one that will be repeated and enhanced upon for the next hour or so, so it works very well.

   Sci-fi, kinda a tough genre . . .

   It’s been a long time, but if I recall, Neo meets Trinity in the first ten pages of THE MATRIX . . . that’s his big event, and it’s huge when you think about it in terms of where the story goes, but played very small (and interestingly enough, we don’t start that film with Neo, we start with Trinity, who goes on the run from THE MAN in a spectacular way) . . . and it’s a bit quiet, after that teaser hook in the beginning with her jumping thru the window.

   I haven’t see I AM LEGEND yet (I will) but I read an early draft of the script online (before Akiva got his hands on it) and I’ve heard it’s closer to CAST AWAY than most sci-fi stuff like MEN IN BLACK (there’s a another, in the first ten pages, Tommy Lee finds a REAL illegal alien, has to shoot him and his partner has a heart attack . . . which means he needs a new partner . . . all in ten minutes).

   I’m looking forward to it.

   So I guess for me the first ten pages gotta be about character, most of us. That’s our hook, don’t you think? We don’t watch movies for special effects, we watch them because of the people within them . . .

   Of course, great dialogue and characters should hook a person - the first ten pages should be when we meet the people we’re gonna spend the next couple hours with, and they should be engrossing enough that we WANT to, right?

   I’m ranting, Unk, sorry . . . LOL!

   Just spitballing ideas, it’s fun . . .

6. Tom on Monday: 24 December 2007|1227

   UNK, you say you use the First 10 page theory as part of your structure. Should I take this to mean that you make sure there’s something within the first ten pages of the script that tips off the reader that there’s something different about the script?

   The reason I ask is, in the script i’m working on now, the real hook — what makes the script unique — doesn’t occur until pages 25-30. There’s really no way of showing this in the first 10 pages because of the structure of the story.

   Now, I think the first 10 pages (especially the first 4) do a good job of sucking the reader in and developing the character we’re going to follow. And yes, there’s an inciting incident. But I don’t know if it accomplishes this…

   “10 pages need to scream out to the reader and audience that everything they ever thought they knew about screenplays and movies is now going out the fucking window because Baby… You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

   I think if there is a point like that in the script, it happens at the end of act 1, beginning of act 2.

   I mean, I can do my best to make sure the first 10 pages are really fucking well-written, but can’t do anything about putting the big hook in there.

7. Joshua James on Monday: 24 December 2007|1236

   Oh, and in case I forgot to email ya . . . HAPPY HOLIDAYS UNK!

8. Mike on Monday: 24 December 2007|1344

   This entry really strikes a chord with me. In particular:

   “I make note of this because somehow, a lot of the scripts I read never really feel like they’re competing… It’s more like they just showed up.”

   Boy, does this sound like my screenwriting—it just shows up. ;-)

   “It’s definitely not for the purists who are not willing to scrap it all, sit back and dig in deep and start getting creative.

   “You gotta give it all you got or it’s just not worth writing. It’s got to be different yet similar.”

   Somehow the word ‘derivative’ comes to mind. LOL.

   When I finish my current project I will definitely revisit my other five screenplays to make sure they are no longer only ’showing up’ and are creative instead of derivative.

   We all owe you – to be the best writers we can be. Corny, but oh so true.

   Regards,

9. Unk on Monday: 24 December 2007|1352

   chris,

   Agreed.

   Ryan,

   Not bad… Some good stuff to consider.

   Josh,

   It’s good to be competitive… In fact, it’s a MUST to succeed in this business. Of course, it’s not exactly the same kind of competition as most people are used to… i.e., a man to man foot race but rest assured it is competition none the less… The beauty of screenwriting competition is that one can sit down and review their successful competition and formulate a strategy to beat them when it comes to story, structure, obstacles, events, etc.

   Unfortunately, I keep hearing from prospective writers who prefer NOT to be competitive. It kind of reminds me of going to one of my friend’s son’s T-Ball games and when I asked my friend what the score was, he immediately replies, “We don’t keep score! This is just so the kids can have fun!” Uh, yeah… Cool. Then when we all went out to lunch later, and my friend excused himself from the table, I asked his son what the score was…

   And he told me. LOL.

   Turns out that the kids actually keep score among themselves while the parents are out there in LA-LA LAND saying they don’t believe in competition. Just as these parents fail to realize that one day their kids are going to have to enter the real world of competition and probably not be prepared for it — so are lots of prospective screenwriters unprepared for the extremely stiff competition they face in the SPEC market.

   Hence, simply realizing and ACCEPTING this fact alone is going to give you a leg up but you’d be surprised at how many prospective screenwriters do not want to accept this reality.

   Oh well…

   Tom,

   You said: “UNK, you say you use the First 10 page theory as part of your structure. Should I take this to mean that you make sure there’s something within the first ten pages of the script that tips off the reader that there’s something different about the script?”

   Absolutely! I try to come up with SOMETHING that hasn’t been done within the genre before… Something that is commensurate WITH the genre but that we haven’t seen. I hate being derivative and cliché so I go out of my way to avoid that as much as possible because no matter what you do, there’s been so many movies — somebody somewhere is going to draw a comparison between what you’ve written and what’s been done.

   It’s hard to speculate on your current script but my spidey sense tells me that you can keep your larger hook where it is and simply try to come up with a genre hook in the beginning — not a bait and switch hook — but a hook that is within the genre but not simply put there for the genre. A genre hook that promises bigger and better things to come. A mini-rollercoaster ride if you will…

   Take a look at the last 007 flick… Remember the foot chase? I don’t know about you but the foot chase in the beginning blew me away. I’d never seen anything like it before… Sure, we’ve seen foot chases before but this foot chase — at least to me — is THE foot chase of foot chases SO FAR. Did the rest of the movie live up to that foot chase? Hmmm. In places, sure — so it wasn’t too much of a stretch but that scene definitely hooked me and was obviously commensurate with the 007 genre.

   So yeah, you CAN do it and it doesn’t have to be the BIG HOOK you want to hook us with later on.

   Unk

10. Christian Howell on Monday: 24 December 2007|1358

    Great XMas present for those of us stuck to our PCs - until party time. I believe also in the “first 10 pages,” and agree with Joshua that it will always be different, dependent upon the direction of the story and the backdrop.

    A story that takes place in a fantasy world will have a different feel than a crime drama in Georgia or a love story in Cleveland.

    As writers we have THREE and only THREE things to use. Images, sounds and words. The beauty is that we can examine images of people speaking over background sounds. Or perhaps the sound of an image that causes a character to speak. We can abstract images or distort sounds and even use sign language.

    The first ten pages does intro the protag and most important characters, but it also exposes the story’s what, why and how.

    I think the most important part of this is the inciting incident. It should always fit the story and the character, meaning don’t put a timid accountant in Die Hard or a passive female in The Matrix.

    Right now, I am really developing “character-drive” as action sequences are easier than the death of a loved-one. I’ve been looking at the Archetypes lately in order to delve deeper into personality traits. That’s where conflict is born; in the reaction to an action.

    Anyway, great post as usual.

11. Unk on Monday: 24 December 2007|1404

    Mike,

    Ah similar yet different does NOT have to be derivative. Derivative means NOT ORIGINAL. You have to come up with something ORIGINAL but commensurate with the genre.

    We don’t want to read your script and think to ourselves, DIE HARD ON A BEACH.

    That’s not to say that there aren’t producers out there looking for this shit but does this mean you want to be the one that writes it?

    Keep it original. Stand the genre on its HEAD by coming up with events and obstacles that have yet to be seen and then everyone will be writing screenplays derivative of your screenplays — which of course is what you want.

    Which, in my humble opinion, you’re actually on your way to doing… It’s going to take some work but it can be done.

    Josh,

    Feliz Navidad…

    Unk

12. bobbie on Monday: 24 December 2007|1537

    Unk
    I can certainly attest to how important those first ten pages are. I also love that you are saying that they be commensurate with the genre but not be thrown in simply for genre’s sake. We see this all the time and it just doesn’t work. Great post! Merry Christmas and did you get the bottle??? Drink a tall one on me my man. I owe you.

    Updated 4 act structure?

13. spatula on Tuesday: 25 December 2007|2324

    Unk, this is the shit that I read, and I’m like, dude, you’re fucking brilliant. I totally dig what you are saying in that post.
    What I wanted to get yours, and other’s opinions on, was the concept of starting with the ending and then doing the “flashback” for the rest of the movie. As in, the first ten pages would be the climax (before resolution) and there would just be a shorter Act 1 before building back up to the ending and resolution. Is that overdone? Is it too taboo? Is it the forbidden monkey of the screenwriting world?

    Muchas Gracias,
    -Spatula

14. Unk on Wednesday: 26 December 2007|1330

    Christian,

    To be honest, I don’t agree that it depends on the angle of the story… There’s absolutely no reason for those first 10 pages NOT to give us a preview of THINGS TO COME.

    The THINGS TO COME do not necessarily have to be about the plot of the story either… They can be as simple as showing us how quintessential the Protagonist or Antagonist is.

    I for one do not want to read a boring 10 pages — WAITING for the story to get better. LOL. In fact, as a producer, WHY should I have to read that far? Why should I have to give that screenwriter my blind faith that he or she is going to turn things around further into the script?

    Chances are that if the first 10 pages are boring — so will the rest of the script be boring save for maybe a couple of events but to be honest… Even that’s a stretch and generous with my blind faith.

    To me PERSONALLY, it simply does not matter WHAT you’re writing… From the lowly worm farm debutante screenplay to a character driven Indie — all the way to an action thriller… Why not make those first 10 pages SING?

    There’s a million different songs they can sing… So of course I’m not advocating any kind of pigeon-hole… The 10 pages should be commensurate with the genre in some way and give us goosebumps, shortness of breath, anxiety, and tension all rolled into one let alone make us want to turn to page 11.

    bobbie,

    Got the bottle. Drank half of it already. LOL. You’re a prince. Oops. Did you stick “ie” at the end of your name to throw us off?

    Sorry… LOL.

    Updated 4 Act Structure is coming… And I must say that it’s even better than it was before.

    spat,

    I personally don’t have a problem with starting at the end. Just make sure that the end you start with gives us all the information we need for the flashback to make sense. No, not all the questions have to be answered — just everything after the ending needs to make sense to us.

    I don’t subscribe to what any of the gurus say about narration and flashbacks as long as you write them skillfully and they add to the story instead of take away and feel as though it was the lazy way out.

    I would never worry about anything being overdone… I would worry more about the writing being derivative and cliché.

    If you’re (not necessarily YOU) writing a genre that everyone says NOT to write because Hollywood is or has been flooded with those types of movies and scripts, then all I can say is this… If you’re passionate about that story, go ahead and write it but REINVENT the wheel. Become the new standard that the genre will be compared to. That means coming up with stuff that’s never been done. If that task seems daunting or impossible, then writing screenplays for the spec market might not be for you because EVEN if you can write derivative and cliché garbage like a motherfucker, it’s still derivative and cliché.

    Unk

15. Christian Howell on Thursday: 27 December 2007|1054

    UNK,
    Don’t get me wrong, i am in no way advocating a “slow 10 pages.” On the contrary, what I meant was that even in Die Hard, nothing really happens until the van pulls into the building and the guard is shot, but what we do see is a man with a teddy bear, a smile and a gun, all of which describe the character and sets the tone for action.

    In character-driven script I finished a few months ago, that packs a nice punch into the first 10. It uses more of the “establishing the quintessential nature of the protag,” method but does throw in some tension, genuine concern, friendship, courage and longing for a deceased loved-one. Oh and there is a hint of action (cut and put back).

    So by depending on the genre, I meant more depending on the story. You want the most revealing thoughts in the beginning and also the most relevant traits. They will just be related differently.

    But just now thinking about it, that’s exactly the start of my first family comedy also. Wait, I think my thriller does the same thing - all three of them.

    This is the beauty of the debate of cinema. We’re all usually on the same page but speak a slightly different language.

16. Elver on Thursday: 27 December 2007|1838

    Ah, but you’re wrong about Die Hard. I had the pleasure of rewatching it a couple of days ago (Estonia’s traditional Christmas movies: Home Alone and Die Hard) and what the first 10 minutes do is establish the conflict between John and Holly.

    The bear, gun, and smile parts wouldn’t hold a viewer. The marriage problems do. I’d say the primary role of the gun in the first two minutes is to foreshadow the coming action.

    The gun says: sit tight, there’s gonna be some shooting.

    The marriage problems say: here’s some conflict to keep things moving until terrorists arrive.

    The bear as a gift for the kids says: pay attention to the marriage problems.

    If the first 10 minutes had been about McClane, the topic of discussion between him and Argyle would have been cop work, not his relationship with Holly and the kids.

    Die Hard is pretty close to an ideal action film. It’s damn well written. (Die Hard 2 is seriously underrated in my opinion, Die Hard 3 is seriously overrated with a ton of plot holes, and 4 was interesting, but in the end the whole main plotline seemed like a bad MacGuffin.)

17. Unk on Thursday: 27 December 2007|2211

    Christian,

    Exactly… What DIE HARD did was to stand the genre on its ear… It was JUST interesting enough for us to invest ourselves into the movie because many of us have gone through something similar OR know somebody that’s gone through something similar.

    What they did with the first 10 pages was misdirect us in a way that kept us interested… Those 10 minutes are not boring at all and definitely not a bait and switch with a boring story to come later.

    Yet, the backstory of McClane prepares us for his character arc set against the story of Hans, the Antagonist.

    All I’m saying is that it hadn’t been done quite like that before and is now somewhat of the standard a lot of action movies are compared to.

    Does that mean ALL movies should be structured like that? Not at all. I actually like to think of the first ten pages as the FREE ZONE. You’ve got to keep the action commensurate with the genre but there’s no reason you can’t invent something NEW that’s not been done before that STILL serves the story overall.

    In other words, there are no real rules except as Elver had said before — do not bait and switch. Do not give us 10 pages of something totally UNRELATED to your story.

    So it sounds like your’e doing exactly that with your script as long as what we’d be reading isn’t derivative or cliché.

    Elver,

    Outstanding analysis and you’re absolutely correct… DH2 is highly underrated.

    Great comments!

    Unk

18. Thomas Rufer on Friday: 28 December 2007|0526

    I always try to make my first ten pages the most exciting possible.

    One trick is to start with your story as late as possible. Try to cut out all the bs (you can always add them later in the story) and just start with what makes the story go wild.

    The first ten minutes should set the tone/mood of the story.

    Another trick is to give an audience some kind of a hint of what will come later on. Or to make them wonder why that comes. For example in American Beauty Alan Ball implanted a conflict in the back of our head right at the beginning of the script: “Lester’s daughter plots against him and he tells us right after that he’ll be dead in less than a year.” That will our guide throughout the story that keeps us asking and questioning.

    So basically in the first 10 pages you as an audience have to know what happens in the end of the story if your protag doesn’t do what he needs to do.

    Why is Die Hard so great? Take away the action and you still have a fantastic movie. Many of the conflicts of these characters are inner conflicts that make us feel part of the situation. Action was just added.

19. Joshua James on Friday: 28 December 2007|1638

    DIE HARD is actually based on a novel by Robert (or Richard or Roderick, sorry, I’m oving fast) Thorpe, who also wrote another great novel called THE DETECTIVE that was made into a pretty decent film with Frank Sinatra much earlier than DIE HARD.

    I’ve read both books, they’re pretty decent - obviously they changed stuff for DIE HARD, but I think the character work, which made it pretty unique for an action flick in 87, was set up by the novel (though it’s been a long time since I’ve read it, but I wanna say that it was his estranged daughter instead of wife, damn it, I’m gonna have to go on amazon right now!) anyway . ..

    Just thought I’d let ya know, DIE HARD wasn’t a spec, it was an adaptation.

    Josh “my Asperger’s is under control, seriously” James

20. Joshua James on Friday: 28 December 2007|1644

    Just looked it up, DIE HARD was adapted from a novel by Roderick Thorp entitled NOTHING LASTS FOREVER and he was going to visit his daughter, not his wife, and our hero’s name is different, too (Joe Leeland rather than John McClane) . . . but overall they’re the same story, though the film added some differing twists from the book, which is darker and bleaker . . . I may have to read the damn thing again - LOL!

    Okay, I’m off to alphabetize my fridge, heh.

    I’m kidding, I don’t do that.

    Seriously.

21. Steve on Friday: 28 December 2007|1700

    Unk,

    (Insert borderline creepy compliment here)! I’ve never really thought about the competition aspect like that. I mean, I knew it was there but it was never a concious thought in the forefront of my mind as I’m writing. It’s odd though because you probably never see your competition, or what “score” they received.

    It’s like going to a restaurant where the prices aren’t listed on the menu. You just have to pray to God that when the bill comes you have enough money (try and think back to the days when you weren’t tearin’ up Hollywood).

    Good stuff! It’s helpful to always be thinking “is what I’m writing good? Or is it a progression that any logical/mildly creative douche bag could come up with if given the same story outline”. Usually I’m not sure, which probably actually answers that question.

    Alright, time to go rework the first ten pages of my script. Happy Holidays!

22. Christian Howell on Friday: 28 December 2007|1738

    UNK,
    Yeah, that’s what I meant. Don’t make the first 10 minutes TOO great as to go in a direction the rest of the story doesn’t.

    Of course you can put MASS drama in as long as it furthers the story or reveals character, but it’s like walking a tight rope. You’ve got to hit the “center.”

    Elvert,
    I don’t disagree. But the Holly story is more a B-story. Since McClane is a cop, he would have fought the terrorists even if it would have been a party thrown by McClane’s host or if he had “stumbled” onto it.

    DH2 was even better, since it was “wider.” It had exploding airplanes, SWAT teams, double-crosses and even a sidekick in the form of Marv the janitor. 3 and 4 started to wind down - though I didn’t see 4, I think it went a little overboard trying to raise the stakes from the others.

23. Ryan R. on Saturday: 29 December 2007|0759

    The competition aspect is practical. You have a studio willing to open a slot for a specific genre. That’s to say, a certain audience expectation. There’s a lot of power in expectation.

    How many people go into a movie expecting nothing, completely unaware of what they just payed for. No one. Well, maybe someone is trying to get out of the cold but even so, they have to make a choice. How do they choose? They say, what slots are available to me? They peruse and say, THAT looks good. Why? They haven’t seen it yet. It could suck. Suck hard. Still, they pay. They are tipped off by all these little aspects. They pay b/c they expect to be surprised not ambushed and robbed of their expectation.

    Many of us can attest to having paid for something that we expected would be much different than what we wound up with and 9 times out 10, when that happens, we don’t like what we paid for.

    Expectation, not ambushed and robbed. We must meet expectation. Surprise and fulfillment. Satisfy the need of the genre.

    They paid to hear a blues band. What kind of blues? Are they the same old tired chords, a derivative of something great. Are there twists on established forms and plays on structure without straying too far from the roots - too far and they’re suddenly in unknown and unwanted territory. Unknown is good if the audience says, I know this AREA but I’ve never been to this side of town. They are curious how they will be led back to the familiar. If you achieve this, they say, ohhh shit. This alley leads to the gym. Crazy. I didn’t know you could take this short cut. Sweet. I’ll follow this dude anywhere.

    To compete with others might be less effective than competing with expectation. Every writer working to fill that one available slot must compete with the established expectation against each one another. You can’t simply pull stunts out of nowhere and be like, see, I took you to an alien planet where the ladies have four, uh, legs, and beer is available free at every local watering fountain. The audience has its expectations. The genre has its expectations. The suits have their expectations. The readers, their own. You, your own.

    Someone said that there are no real rules but I would say that in terms of genres and expectation there are requirements. Just think about what you require in order to be satisfied with your movie ticket purchase. And if you want to beat the other guy or gal to that spot, the first ten pages are your pawns - that first line of defense.

    Of course you can write a beginning that kills and then drag your sorry feet through the rest of the film but look at boxing.

    I love boxing. You get 12 rounds, right? Writer’s get three or four depending on structure. Each act attacks. Now, there’s only one winner.

    Round one, your fighter comes out hell bent on destruction, punching furious. So, that ten is scored in your guys favor. The writer your up against, scores less.

    10 / 6

    We’re winning but haven’t won.

    Round two you can’t sustain that insanity. Not possible, not by you atleast. The competition just so happens to be a gifted comedian and slayed with a great scene.

    6 / 10

    You get my point.

    Be well rounded. Know your limitations. But train your arse off and don’t put that fighter in the ring until you are willing to place money on your fighter to win b/c next year, you probably won’t be able to put your fighter up against another contender at that same venue (studio).

    A competitive spirit is required when you’re going up against any establishment. Come prepared or be prepared to lose.

    As for Die Hard, how engaging would that first bit with the ex wife, the teddy bear and all that, would it be if we weren’t aware (expect) that this was somehow tied into all the ass kicking that was about to take place? Sometimes a genre can pull us through the opening as opposed to the opening pushing us through itself.

    Dramas usually don’t have as much pull factor and require much more push. If the opening of Die Hard was the opening to a drama? What does the scene look like now?

24. Unk on Saturday: 29 December 2007|1246

    Yow! I take a day off only to find even more outstanding comments!

    I truly appreciate everyone giving us their 2 cents because that’s definitely what it’s all about. Screenwriting is subjective and discussions like these — about the inner workings of the craft only serve to improve everyone’s writing no matter how terrible or how wonderful they write already.

    Good stuff! Thanks!

    Thomas,

    While I agree with you in principle, I don’t agree with you in practice. Let me explain. I’ve actually talked about this before on the site but let me reiterate…

    While I agree that the final draft of your script SHOULD be composed of scenes that start as late as possible into that scene (same goes for STORY), my experience with new writers, old writers, novice writers, and pro writers is that when they attempt to do this in their draft to BEGIN WITH, they often leave out some amazing stuff.

    Meaning that sure… Your FINAL DRAFT should be edited to start as late as possible but go ahead and write everything that happens just before and just after. This OVERLAP will often contain some AMAZING story elements that you could have ONLY THOUGHT OF IF you perform the exercise of writing everything “just before” and “just after.”

    Once you do that and it comes time for editing your masterpiece into a smaller page numbered draft, you will find pieces of dialogue as well as pieces of action from the “just before” section that you can move up into the “late as possible” section and pull the same type of information from the “just after” section down into the “late as possible” section.

    However, what I’ve found is that there are so many fucking gurus and screenwriting books and articles that want to quash this practice.

    If you push your brain into just going as late into the story, sequence, and scene as possible, you run the POSSIBILITY of losing precious material that you might be able to create if you go ahead and write the “just before” and the “just after” parts of the story, sequences, and scenes.

    I don’t care what anyone says… We’ve been programmed to think more in a linear fashion than non-linear. We tend to think of timelines, priority of tasks, what happened in what order, etc. When you JUMP to the end of something without regard for what happened just before or just after, you run the risk of losing precious material. I’ve been able to FIX screenplays simply by considering what happened just before and just after a scene.

    Whew… Hope that makes sense.

    The hints you talk about however are totally right on. Setting things up and paying them off later is really a highly overlooked trick of the trade when it comes to newbie scripts. It’s simply NOT done enough and what’s interesting about this structural element is that it works exactly because of what I just wrote… We tend to THINK in a linear fashion. So when you set something up for us that we do NOT know is being set up for our benefit — then spectacularly pay this off later, you make us PROUD of ourselves for remembering the setup! You pull us into your story even more. We wonder how many others GOT IT like we did. Even pros don’t do this enough in my humble opinion.

    Unk

25. Unk on Saturday: 29 December 2007|1300

    Josh,

    I think old Blue Eyes was originally going to do DIE HARD after having done THE DETECTIVE. Of course it wouldn’t have been called DIE HARD back then but yeah, Frank wanted to do it.

    I don’t think anyone said DIE HARD was a spec though… I know I didn’t. What we were saying is that a ton of specs hit the market afterwards that were explained as: DIE HARD ON A (fill in the blank).

    And all I’m saying NOW is that you can certainly use DIE HARD as a model of outstanding structure but just don’t give us DIE HARD ON A (fill in the blank).

    Unless a producer actually hires you to write DIE HARD ON A (fill in the blank), don’t bother writing that unless as we read it, we do NOT think of any previous version of DIE HARD.

    It’s been done and done to death. So doing a spec in this vein could end up being an exercise in futility unless you do it so that as we read it, we don’t actually THINK we’re watching DIE HARD ON A (fill in the blank).

    And come one… We know you have your fridge alphbetized. Zucchini is all the way in the back. No wonder it’s rotten!

    Unk

26. Unk on Saturday: 29 December 2007|1306

    Steve,

    You said: “(Insert borderline creepy compliment here)! I’ve never really thought about the competition aspect like that. I mean, I knew it was there but it was never a concious thought in the forefront of my mind as I’m writing. It’s odd though because you probably never see your competition, or what “score” they received. “

    Which is why I talk about it and try to keep it in the forefront of everyone’s mind because it definitely does exist.

    What really kills me though (Josh notwithstanding… LOL) is how many screenwriters simply do not want to recognize this. They live in a world of denial when it comes to this yet they consider their stuff to be MAXXED OUT already – i.e., it’s good enough. They’ve done all they can do. It can’t be any better. Yada yada yada.

    Fuck that.

    It can always be better.

    Unk

27. Unk on Saturday: 29 December 2007|1321

    Christian,

    Agreed.

    Ryan,

    I like what you’re saying… Unfortunately, very few writers in my estimate can figure out what EXPECTATION is. Don’t get me wrong… I agree. That’s how I work. I consider myself my hardest critic and because of that, my very own expectation is much higher than that of the average movie goer.

    So… If you’re no good at understanding audience expectation, you pretty much have no where else to go than other outstanding films within that genre.

    You find structural elements within that outstanding film and cube them. LOL. A shitty way to work but unfortunately, how many in the industry work. I say doing that kind of research should become somewhat the basis of your structural foundation BEFORE you outline your structure.

    I do wish more writers would become their own harshest critic. If that were to happen, I think we would see a hell of lot better specs coming in.

    I also like what you’re saying about audience expectation when they plop down their $7.50 plus to see a movie. We reward these poor people with SHIT. LOL.

    Yet they keep coming back in HOPES for that one movie that’s going to be special but let’s face it… The return on their investment sucks.

    And the more it keeps sucking, the less these INVESTORS are going to invest.

    Great comment! Thanks!

    Unk

28. Tom on Saturday: 29 December 2007|1409

    “The hints you talk about however are totally right on… It’s simply NOT done enough and what’s interesting about this structural element is that it works exactly because of what I just wrote…”

    Juno does this with the chair. Read the script and saw the film and think both are pretty great. The dialog is a little too much in Act 1, but I think that works to the overall effect of the script.

29. Unk on Saturday: 29 December 2007|1412

    Tom,

    Haven’t done either yet… Nice to know.

    Unk

30. Joshua James on Saturday: 29 December 2007|1827

    Hey Unk,

    Oh, I know you didn’t say DIE HARD was a spec - I merely wanted to throw it out for the general discussion, that it was based on a book - I don’t think a whole lotta people know that.

    And those things have impact.

    A word on competition . . . I think some folks get the wrong idea about what it means re: writing - at least, this is my take.

    It ain’t like, we get into a ring and beat each other up - it ain’t like, I’m taking food away from you . . . we’re not fighting each other, I devoutly believe that.

    It’s closer to me doing something and you going, “ahh, that was cool, now I gotta try something like that, something even better . . . ” like when musicians get together and jam, they’re each trying to top what the other one did before it . . . and they’re very aware of it when it happens . . .

    Because doing that, sharing it and showing it, it makes it better . . . some of it is about the score, you bet, but that’s merely a marker and in a way, sometimes the marker really is besides the point, it’s really about excelling and the only way you do that is by keep topping each other and, in a way, keep topping yourself.

    Me, I rewrite everything because not only do I want to be as good as I can be, I want to play ball with the guys at the top of the game, and I want to do it becuz it’s fun, damn it.

    And I really believe that when someone who is good has success, it will lead to success for me, I do. And when mediocre or sucky people have writing success, it lessens the chances of those devoted to craft, because it muddies the waters . . . James Patterson is killing fiction in short, small cuts, for example.

    But Elmore Leonard keeps breathing it back to life.

    But I’ve digressed.

    There’s a difference between nasty back-stabbing competition where you’re spreading lies to your agent about that new writer becuz you’re secretly jealous and the fun kind of competition where people who respect each other’s work are constantly pushing each other to greater heights.

    The first one is not good, and bad karma. The second one is the spartan way to excel and better for everybody.

    Short example about fun competition.

    A close friend needed a subject for a short play in a festival. I had an idea for one, but I gave it to him instead (cuz that’s how I roll) . . . I told him, takes place all in the dark, no lights, a couple arguing over a condom. We don’t see them, we only hear them. A play, heh-heh. He called it A SHOT IN THE DARK.

    He wrote it, I gave him a couple notes, he reworked it and when it got staged, it killed. Audience laughed so hard they cried.

    I enjoyed it, but part of me was like, “wait a minute, now I want some of this” and the very next year, I wrote my own short play that takes place all in the dark, about a married couple who want to have sex but are too tired to move.

    It’s called THE RACE (downloadable in my short play library). They have a “race.” Heh-heh.

    It got staged and it also killed, and killed big. I topped him. Audiences laughed so hard they were pissing themselves.

    My friend watched this and went, uh-huh. All right. It’s ON.

    The next year, in a full length play of his, he had one particular scene in it between a couple that was all in the dark. It didn’t just kill, it creamed the audiences . . . they screamed, they were laughing so hard. Shrieks during that scene. I’m not gonna tell you what the scene was about, but I will say, I laughed myself purple.

    The funny thing is, that scene was everyone’s favorite but almost no one knew he wrote only only to top me. It was only in their to impress me and compete with me (though it also moved the story along, it wasn’t fluff) . . . no one knew or cared that he wrote it only to piss me off (in a fun way).

    I got busy writing screenplays after that, and my buddy got busy acting in movies, so our friendly competition is on hold for awhile . . . to be honest, he deserved that win, and I ain’t sharing the many little ones I won along the way . . . I write a lot and fast, too.

    But lemme tell ya something . . . one of these days, if or when we both get back to doing theatre, I’m gonna write a comic piece all in the dark that’s gonna top that bastard. Seriously, it’s gonna be a nuclear meltdown and he’ll be the only one to know it was aimed right at him.

    Heh-heh.

31. Unk on Saturday: 29 December 2007|1909

    Josh…

    My mistake.

    I had HOPED that anyone reading this thread understood what I meant about competition because you are absolutely right.

    I don’t feel like spelling it out all the time because to me… A real and true SCREENWRITER gets it.

    It’s certainly “friendly” competition OR certainly SHOULD BE i.e., where we, by reading and watching each other’s screenplays and movies, are blown away and TRULY impressed to the point where we have NO CHOICE but to top it.

    I’m a firm believer in giving away ALL THE SECRETS… LOL. As if there really are any… That way we level the playing field and just fuckin’ WRITE.

    May the best SCREENWRITER win…

    Great comment once more… Oh and by the way, I see you’re still out there making friends in the scribosphere.

    I mean, WE SEE. LOL.

    Unk

32. bobbie on Saturday: 29 December 2007|2119

    Unk,

    Great discussion here! I love reading this stuff, truly. Can’t actually get enough of it. Makes me remember why I love writing so much.

    Thanks,
    bobbie

33. Joshua James on Saturday: 29 December 2007|2204

    LOL!

    I know, I know, right?

    If there’s anything that frosts me, it’s when a reader says “this is amateurish, weak writing” and then when you say, but “Oscar-winning such-and-such does it all the time” they say, “they’ve EARNED that right” to be weak and amateurish, etc.

    Such a bullshit, a classic straw man argument. But whatever, I shouldn’t get involved in that stuff, I should just look away . . . and I probably shouldn’t piss off a reader for one of the “big-five” agencies (who also produced a studio movie, how do you go from producing a studio movie to reading for an agency, isn’t that backward) but I was respectful and truthful, at least.

    But like you say, having those dialogues improves us all (it would improve it even more if John stepped in and said, “hey, that’s bullshit” but that ain’t his way) . . . I know a few pro directors in film and TV directors (not A-list) who hate readers, maintain they don’t know anything, etc.

    I don’t believe that, but I do believe too many of them know too much of one thing and not enough of another, which fucks them up.

    I have a few friends who read for prodco’s here in nyc, actually, more than a few (not just in the city). . . and I used to get notes from them from time to time - a couple of them, I just stopped showing them stuff because they simply don’t get it, they’re nice and all, but they don’t. Once one gave me a script of his own to read and it was, quite simply, terrible.

    Perfectly formatted, smooth to the eye. Boring and confusing as hell in terms of what happens. I didn’t give him notes like he gives me (he tears shit up) - I highlighted what I liked and gave him things to think about for a rewrite. He wasn’t going to rewrite it, he thought it was pretty much there (big mistake).

    Some readers do know what they’re doing, as do some writers, but dramaturgy is very hard, it’s both analytical and emotional, and add to that one needs an eye for performance-based actions (in other words, de-cyphering what will play and what will not) . . . it’s harder, in a way, than writing itself can be.

    So I say that not to slur them, the readers, but to highlight that one of the revolutions that needs to happen for our industry is that NOT EVERYONE can tell us is a script works, I think . . . just handing it to our aunt or uncle who likes to read won’t work.

    Because a book is in the form it’s meant to be in, and a screenplay is a blueprint for what will be . . . you have to see the house and tell if it will hold the weight, just from looking at the blueprint.

    A degree in English doesn’t mean someone can tell you if this screenplay will be a great movie.

    It’s a curious combination, I think, and based a lot on trial and error experience, some of which is reading scripts and some of which are things other than that.

    Aack, listen to me.

    Shoot, Unk, I’m ranting - I’m in one of those moods, end of the year and I’m doing my journal wrap-up, it’s got the little hamster in his wheel upstairs running like a mad bastard.

    I’ll stop hijacking your thread here.

    Happy new year email on its one on Monday, bro . . .

34. Ryan R. on Sunday: 30 December 2007|1549

    “You find structural elements within that outstanding film and cube them. LOL. A shitty way to work but unfortunately, how many in the industry work.”

    Yeah, I haven’t really thought about it but that pinpoints that little voice in my head that starts nagging while watching a movie that I feel is an emulation of a better movie. It’s like when you see a kid draw a picture of his favorite superhero. The drawing is commendable but there’s only one
    Sponge Bob. I think those kind of movies really show their gears when our aim, I think, is to make them invisible.

    “While I agree that the final draft of your script SHOULD be composed of scenes that start as late as possible into that scene (same goes for STORY), my experience with new writers, old writers, novice writers, and pro writers is that when they attempt to do this in their draft to BEGIN WITH, they often leave out some amazing stuff.”

    So true. It’s always better to have a little fat to begin with because you can see exactly where it meets the meat. Not only this, to reiterate what you’re saying, when you paint outside the lines you make new unexpected discoveries. And in acting terms, it’s always better to go over the top, above beyond reach, b/c you can always restrain. However, you don’t shoot for that moon, you don’t know where that ceiling is - you miss out on potential.

    You can never have too much material when you’re trying to achieve taut lines.

    To be honest, I didn’t know all I had to do was click on the word comments to read the comments. Yet another cool corridor to explore.

    The blog rocks Unk.

35. dave on Wednesday: 2 January 2008|0025

    Damn, what could I possibly add?

    I’d like to address this comment though: Why is Die Hard so great? Take away the action and you still have a fantastic movie. Many of the conflicts of these characters are inner conflicts that make us feel part of the situation. Action was just added.

    It’s like falling in love. At some point, you’ll just understand what makes Die Hard so great.

    For some reason (IMHO) a great script just has the ability to keep you reading. Die Hard, Unforgiven and others I can’t think of - you read, and the writing is smooth and the characters engaging, and you’re getting all this, what seems like small, fluff stuff, and before you know it, you’re 15 pages in…well, now you like the characters enough to want to see what the hell is going to happen, so you read a little more and at 25 or so, you’re thinking OMG! Now I have to keep going… and before you know it, you’re 60 pages in and not about to stop.

    Your first 10 pages doesn’t have to be action or, for me, anything spectacular, but it has to be written so cleanly and so concisely that you can squeeze in a ton of information, voice, style and story “hints” that the reader can’t stop reading.

    Great stuff, Unk~!

36. Unk on Wednesday: 2 January 2008|2231

    bobbie,

    Drank the rest of the bottle…

    Ouch.

    Josh,

    You always have a home here for your ranting and thread stealing… LOL.

    Ryan R.,

    What I hate even more than SEEING derivative is READING derivative because there’s just no excuse for it. If I read your script and most of what it does is make me think about some other movie, you’ve failed.

    Not YOU you… LOL. The general you. I know you know that but with all my hate mail, I figure that little disclaimer might keep me from getting a few more because of this thread of which I have gotten plenty.

    Probably from people who don’t like to compete. I did get one however, from a disgruntled Mommy who tried to convince me that competition is what has made this world EVIL.

    I would tend to agree… That the world is generally evil, that is… LOL.

    dave,

    Your thoughts are always welcome… Miss your blog. I know it’s still up… I just miss not reading regular posts. LOL.

    But who am I to criticize? Just another screenwriting punk… At least that’s what my fans tell me.

    Unk

37. dave on Wednesday: 2 January 2008|2346

    You know, Unk, I’d post more if you hadn’t already posted everything *twice* :) I swear, I love the pics you dig up (or make). Sure does make this blog look sweet.

    I truly admire your efforts to continually post this information. As I said last, I’d gotten into a mode of “do we really need to regurgitate this stuff anymore?” I mean, it’s not like Story has changed any in 2,000 years. It’s not as if Screenwriting structure has evolved (it is what it is). All the information is out there, now in volumes of books as well as countless html pages. But, I don’t get the hate mail you do, and I can see from many of the comments, that some folks are either just new, or just haven’t “gotten it” yet.

    Everytime I get caught up with you, I slack off or get busy and come back and there’s a month’s worth of reading :D

    Gotta think up a new column now…

38. Unk on Thursday: 3 January 2008|0103

    Dave,

    I usually make the pics if I have the time unless I find a perfect one as-is…

    I guess I look at this stuff a little differently… Years ago, it sometimes took me a couple or three reads of a book or chapter in a book OR even reading yet another fucking book just to clarify something to me that I had previously read.

    In fact, a very long time ago, I got into the habit of reading about some aspect of screenwriting and then making notes both on paper and voice recorded as to what that information REALLY MEANT TO ME PERSONALLY as a screenwriter.

    I found out that my own opinion always differed slightly (as it should) from the gurus and authors and that by combining ALL this information, I was FINALLY able to see a much bigger picture when it comes to story.

    I AM of the opinion that both story and screenwriting structure has in fact changed and evolved. It is what it is works for the big, overall picture I think but to compete in this business, I think one has to get a lot more intimate than that.

    Often, it’s simply that slightly different perspective on any screenwriting element that will cause someone to GET IT and as I’ve said before, where else can we talk about this stuff?

    I have a lot of screenwriting friends and trust me, none of them want to talk screenwriting. I’m kinda boring that way because I always want to talk about it. Which is why I do this… More than anything else, it keeps me on my toes… Keeps me sharp. Makes me keep thinking about this stuff so that it is always in the forefront of my brain as I write myself.

    I have written about stuff here on the site that has even surprised myself and given me a deeper understanding of what I do and even more — has caused me to go back to my current writing and tweak as per my own fucking opinion.

    I think we tend to get pigeon-holed into a certain way of thinking about all this stuff i.e., starting as late into a scene as possible…

    Geez. I think I’ve read that in every book and article as well as heard in every workshop and seminar and while I agree with that premise when it comes to a completed draft suitable for submission, it just ain’t always true for everyone to write a scene like that.

    Yet it seems that everyone pushes basics like that so when some people attempt to pull that off, they often end up with a scene that lacks the depth they could have had if they had simply written it happening just before and just after and then combined, tweaked, and edited.

    And that’s just ONE topic for discussion.

    I know I have my own version of structure that differs from anything I’ve seen in a book or gotten from a guru’s class… In fact, I don’t think any guru has ever given me their own version of structure in their class or workshop… In fact, they always go back to basic 3 Act Structure which on the face of it — obviously works.

    But it sure as hell doesn’t work for everyone. I had to tweak my thinking and opinion on structure until it worked for me. So while all the major beats are included, I know for a fact that I’ve added a few more elements in there that I’ve gotten from my own research and observation of reading screenplays and watching movies.

    So while our opinions may not be EARTH SHATTERING, they suffice to help sharpen my own skills just a little more and a little more as I go. The comments and discussion help a little more and a little more.

    I think anything that triggers some serious analysis on the part of the screenwriter is definitely worthwhile which is why I’ve always liked reading your blog…

    While you may THINK you weren’t contributing anything worthwhile, I ALWAYS got something out of your analyses of any given topic on the subject.

    And I thank you for that…

    Unk

39. dave on Thursday: 3 January 2008|0133

    you know what, I’m sure you’ve said it before, but I don’t think it hit home until this last post. “where else can we talk about this stuff?” I belong to a writer’s group and it’s hard to find people to talk to about screenwriting and story. That does put a whole new spin on the blog, so I’ll see if I can’t put something up sooner rather than later.

    I also believe you and I are probably closer to our beliefs than some of our posts may indicate. It’s hard to get detailed enough sometimes without that immediate response to make the connection, but by reading your posts, I agree with just about everything. The tweaks I mention are just that - tweaks - that I believe you could live with as well.

    My comment about story, structure and screenwriting being the same is this:

    1) Story is still - introduce a character, put him in a tree, throw rocks at him, get him down. It’s been that way since we scratched drawings on cave walls. What differs now are the details.

    2) Structure - While there are many methods (3 act, 5 act, sequencing, etc.) for telling your story, it still comes down to a beginning, a middle and an end. They don’t even have to be in that order (see Quentin Tarantino). There are certain expectations an audience has for a story, things that we as humans innately do when we create a story. The craft of screenwriting is making those innate events the best they can be - clear, engaging, etc.

    3) Screenwriting has always been, and will for the forseable future - be a blue print for a film. While many of us read them for enjoyment, they are unfulfilled if they do not evolve into a film. Some of the things writers do have changed (master scene, camera angles, EVERYTHING IN CAPS, styles have changed over the years, as have tones (while some of the movies from the 40’s-60’s may have been great, I personally am unable to connect with many of them because of the difference in ideals from then and now).

    I’ve found that once my short term leave has ended, I don’t have as much time to surf the screenwriting blogs as I used to, but I always come back here for sure. The information is always engaging and the comments are almost always honest and in the spirit of passing on knowledge (at least the ones that make it, anyway).

    and just like that…I have my idea for the latest blog entry :D Thank you Muse.

40. Unk on Thursday: 3 January 2008|0348

    dave,

    The only comments that don’t make it here are the porn spam — of which I get several hundred daily. Everything else goes up. The only time a comment is held for moderation and this is done automatically, is when somebody includes a link somewhere within their comment OR the person leaving the comment is doing so for the first time. Since most spam comments include links, I have the blog set to queue these for my approval.

    Every once in a while however (as with yours today), somebody’s comments continuously end up being held for moderation until after I’ve approved several of them. Haven’t quite figured that out except that maybe you have some word in your comment that the spam plugin identifies as possible spam.

    Anyway, I agree — we pretty much agree on most discussions I think. True — STORY is conflict and resolution. Structure is beginning, middle, and end and the only real difference TODAY are the details.

    However, I think there’s so much to be discussed, learned, and evolve within those details that the details themselves are just as important. Hell, even MORE important when it comes down to writing YOUR screenplay.

    But yeah… As I said before… Story and structure are basically the same when looking at the big picture. We agree on that. Even so, it’s the details that separates the good, the bad, and the ugly.

    Unk

41. Opening Up Pandora’s Box | The Superblog on Friday: 4 January 2008|0249

    [...] with my script was the the HOOK was right smack at the END of Act 1…. and after reading Unk’s second last post I smacked myself on the head and said “DAMMIT, you need to start this MOVIE when the movie [...]

42. Scott on Friday: 11 January 2008|1800

    Hey Unk and others,

    A few tho0ughts on the original post and the above reactions.

    Nothing pisses me off more than when I go to see a movie based on the IDEA (which is usually why I choose to see it) and they don’t go for all of the possibilities that the idea provides. It’s like, that’s it? That’s the best they could do? They managed to come up with that idea, or someone gave it to them, and that’s the best bullshit they could bring to the table?

    Especially when the first 10 minutes are so great it sucks you into the world and you’re ready to be taken on the ride of a liftime and then not only one tire goes flat, but the whole car falls into a tar pit and sits there gurgling and spurting for 80 minutes until the tow truck comes.

    I always try to pack so much build up into not only my first ten pages, but every page I write so that each page that turns, it gets faster and faster, and better and better. I feel that if for some reason I fail at that, then I have failed completely, so what’s the point?

    I always try to start off with a very visual, thoroughly enticing first page with an ending line that forces them to turn, and then keep going as I write each page within my structure guidelines. I then try to flesh my protagonist in a way that there is no way the reader is unable to not only care for the character, but not want to let them slip out of their new world; thus creating a new ’status quo’ as Unk says, for that reader. I want their own real world to change, and the way they look at it as well.

    Man this is making me want to get back to my screenplay…

    Anyways,

    One more comment here about competition. I recently left a writing group in my city because I came to find that the other members were all mostly in the group for more of a hobby than wanting to strive for a career as a working, top-notch writer. It was hard to give honest feedback to others who would almost cry when you would tell them the truth that the script was not really good or there were problems that needed to be fixed, or it didn’t even look like a screenplay. As well it sucked to get feedback from people who all they knew to say was, Hey, good job, that was awesome, you seem to know what you’re doing. I am always looking for others who can CHALLENGE me to become a better writer, to rise to the occasion, and to create the best damn screenplay in history. That is the competition I want, and that is the competition that makes you better. Because if you’re not trying to write the best damn screenplay ever written, then why are you wasting your time?

    My two cents… or maybe four.

    - Scottie screenwriter.

Leave a Reply