While there's a lot to be leaned from watching and analysing great TV shows and films, there is also an abundance to learned from watching bad TV and bad films.
As writers, it is easy to be aware of what makes for bad writing while simultaneously incorporating those bad traits we see in other people's work into our own writing.
For what ever reason we overlook, or somehow rationalise away the mistakes in our own works of fiction.
I Just finished watching - no, that's a lie, I just gave up on watching SURVIVOR - the 2015 spy thriller starring Milla Jovovich and Pierce Brosnan.
There's very little to recommend the film.
One thing I noticed was that Milla is not as good an actor as I thought she was - and Pierce is actually far better than I gave him credit for.
But that's not why we're here. A break down of performance is not going to help what was already dead on the page.
As I attempted to watch this film - I started to note down the mistakes it made. See if you have been guilty of incorporating any of these screenwriting no-no's into your works...
THE UNCONNECTED OPENING.
A lot of spy thrillers start with a hook opening. A scene that goes off with a bang. Something that grips the audience and sets up the tone and the pace of the film.
Mostly this opening scene is directly linked to the main storyline of the film.
In Survivor - there is such a hook opening - but it's not until about half way through the film - that you learn what relevance the opening scene had to the rest of the film. Even then, when it is explained, it doesn't have a direct impact on the storyline.
Make sure that your opening hook scene has a direct connection to your main storyline. Don't use it to setup something vague about your hero's or shadow's back story.
THE LATE INCITING INCIDENT
Just a quick re-cap on what the inciting incident is.
It's the event that will call the hero to their adventure. It's the event that changes the hero's world so much that it tests their flaw and sends them off on their journey of self discovery.
The sooner you get to this the better. As I've said before, and I'll no doubt say again - Jaws has its inciting incident in the opening scene. When the young woman gets eaten by the shark. That's about as soon as you can get.
In the good old days, film goers would be happy to hang around in the ordinary world of the film for 20 minutes or so before the inciting incident would propel the hero on their journey.
Now days, you are pushing the cinematic love if you go much past the 15 minute mark, in fact, most would argue that the 12 minute mark is about as late in the piece that you want to be writing your inciting incident.
Survivor - manages to put its inciting incident at the 24 minute mark.
That is far too late.
That means you have 24 minutes of watching the ordinary world. The ordinary world is called that for a good reason. It's ordinary.
While a cleverly written story can have a compelling ordinary world - there's very few movie watchers that will sit past the 20 minute mark without wondering - why am I watching this? What's the story about? When is something interesting going to happen?
Get your inciting incident to happen as soon as feasibly logical for your storyline. If that means it's coming after the 15 minute mark - you need to tighten up those first 15 pages.
SCENE OF DEATH
These are scenes where there is no conflict. And nothing of story importance occurs.
There is a scene early on where Milla meets up with her close friend. A lady who is an artist. Milla goes to her gallery, hangs out, sips champagne, nothing happens. They chat. They're good friends.
This is cinematic death. You must USE every scene to move the story forward. This is the perfect example of a non-dramatic scene.
Why was it in the story? Because Milla needs a friend to call on later.
Milla needs a friend. Great. Can't you think of any other way to introduce her friendship that could maybe have moved the story forward.
How about Milla confides in her friend that she's uncovered something illegal going on at her place of work. Perhaps they get into an argument about that? That way you can use the 'introduce Milla's friend scene' in a productive - move the story forward kind of way.
I said they should get into an argument because ...
SCENE'S WITHOUT CONFLICT
Simply put.
Drama is conflict.
Without conflict, you have dull, dull scenes.
This maxim works across the genres.
The best comedy comes from conflict. The best horror comes from conflict. The best drama, comes from conflict. Sy-Fi, westerns, musicals - you name it, conflict is what drives story.
Can you imagine American beauty if Kevin Spacey loved his wife, and got along fine with his daughter?
There are several scenes in Survivor where there are no conflict. Just characters chatting away, having a nice time. Getting along.
Granted, conflict does come - and when it comes, there is plenty of it - but that brings us to my next point...
LOGIC
This seems so - logical - but how many times have you seen a film and thought - 'that wouldn't happen in real life, it's not logical'.
In Survivor - right after the inciting incident at the 24 minute mark - Milla goes on the run.
Why?
It works for the film.
I remember thinking - why is she on the run? She's done nothing wrong.
About three scenes later - she is seen doing something wrong - so after that scene it becomes logical for her to be on the run.
But until then there is no LOGICAL reason she should go on the run.
This brings me to the problem of the...
OPEN ENDED GOAL
This is an easy one to avoid - but it still happens too often.
In Survivor - Milla is wanted for a crime that wasn't her fault. Her goal is to exonerate herself.
How does she do that? I have no idea. Neither did the writer.
Not for the first half of the film anyway. Maybe later he introduced something for her to go after, but for the first half of the film - I had no idea WHAT it was Milla needed to do to exonerate herself.
This is an open ended goal. A closed ended goal would have been if Milla needed to get to X to prove that she is innocent. Then we have a tangible goal to latch on to.
It's okay to have mystery in your story, just don't have the mystery be about what your hero's goal is.
PLAUSIBILITY
Okay, that's just another word for logic.
In Survivor - there is a scene where a UK official is talking to MIlla, and says, such and such's wife died because she couldn't get a visa to go to America to have life saving surgery.
Think about how dumb that is.
Some of the world's finest surgeons are in the UK. Some of the world's greatest surgeons are in Europe. There is no plausible reason why someone with ample amounts of money would need to fly to the US for a life saving operation.
It's just illogical.
It's not plausible.
in fact.
It's stupid.
Don't write stupid things into your screenplay.
Please.
TELEGRAPHING
Yesterday, I wrote an entire post about the importance of the unexpected.
Telegraphing happens when we the audience can see ahead of time what is going to happen.
Now telegraphing is fine. So long as what you telegraph DOESN'T happen.
Survivor forgot that last part.
They telegraphed that something bad was going to happen. Milla was fortunate enough to not be in the danger zone when that something bad happened.
Nothing really bad happened to her.
A beat was telegraphed - and it played out just the way we expected it to.
Predictable screenwriting is bad screenwriting.
COINCIDENCES
I've written about this before... but I'll say it again...
Coincidences happen all the time in real life. But when they happen in a film - the audience calls it what it is -- bullshit writing.
Example - in Survivor - Milla is about to be shot by an assassin - when - boom - just when he fires - a gas main explodes.
Coincidence? I don't think so. It's just bad writing.
She's then able to turn and run away.
CHARACTERS LOOKING AT THEMSELVES IN MIRRORS
Do I even need to expand on this?
Don't write these scenes in. They were cliche in the 90's. I don't even know what they are now.
Does a double cliche make it not a cliche? Do two cliches become none?
What is the sound of one cliche clapping?
Sorry. I'll stop. You get the idea.
STUPID THINGS
Seems obvious doesn't it?
And yet - here in Survivor - we have stupid moments.
Milla has just wrenched a gun from a guy. It has fired one bullet. She then tries to use the gun to shoot someone - and - it's out of bullets.
That's right - the old - one bullet cartridge gun.
What is this the 1800's?
That's just stupid. Don't write stupid things into your script.
My final note is more a production note than a writing note -
If you ever find yourself directing or producing a spy thriller - please don't have your sound designer add high pitched bleeping noises when text appears on a computer screen.
When text appears on your home computer does a high pitched bleeping noise accompany it?
NO.
So why the hell do they put them in films?
Never do this. Please. Ever.
Also - computer graphics that are illogical.
When you have an actor typing at a computer screen - and there's a cool little graphic of the world, spinning around on screen - do you ever stop and ask yourself - why the hell is there a graphic of the globe spinning around on screen?
No normal computer has that - unless you're running Google Earth.
The take away...
It's easy to be critical of other people's work - I don't do this to point the finger and make fun. I genuinely want you as writers to become aware of these common mistakes so that when you are writing your scripts you can avoid the pitfalls of others.
Luck with your writing... :)
Wednesday, 22 June 2016
Tuesday, 21 June 2016
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UNEXPECTED
A pretty straight forward one today. But often it's the simple, seemingly obvious elements of screenwriting that we forget.
THE UNEXPECTED...
I read a lot of screenplays.
The majority of them are really quite good on one level or another. But the competition being what it is, good isn't good enough. Nor is 'really quite good.'
What a reader, or more importantly, what a producer is looking for is something that takes them by surprise. Something that pushes the bar, something that they weren't expecting.
Most readers/producers start reading a screenplay with a small amount of context. They will have read the logline. They have the title to go from. They will know the genre the script has supposedly been written in.
When the reader/producer has a logline, genre and a title to go from, they go into a read expecting certain things...
Now if you fail to meet that expectation (through poor writing), the results are, rejection. But even if you meet those expectations, odds are, you'll get rejection also. Why? Readers/producers want to be surprised. They want to be taken off guard.
One of the most common faults I see in screenplays is the predictability factor. When you read enough screenplays you can see the formula at work.
And while formula is a good thing on one hand, when formula is too pronounced in your writing, it detracts from your work, because the reader/producer are always two steps ahead of your story. When a reader/producer is expecting a scene to happen - and then it does, they start to check out.
My advice?
Write the unexpected. Now obviously I need to hedge that with - don't write the unexpected for the sake of writing the unexpected - and don't go too far with your 'unexpected moment'.
Within the world you have created, try to write moments that will surprise your character, yourself, and ultimately readers/producers and some day - your audience.
What do I mean by don't go too far?
When you think about it, writing something unexpected is pretty damn easy.
You could write a romantic story for 15 pages, then suddenly introduce aliens that grow out one of the leads eyeballs. That's pretty unexpected. It's also stupid. It's too far.
Keep your unexpected moments within the boundaries of the world you've created.
The Crying Game is probably the very best example of the unexpected.
(MAJOR SPOILER)
In fact...
If you haven't seen the crying game. Do not read the rest of this post. If you're one of the lucky few who have not experienced that film. Do not google anything about it.
Simply get yourself a copy and watch.
For those that have seen it, you know what I'm talking about.
The moment that it's revealed the male lead has fallen in love with a transvestite - the film has done the unexpected. There's no way anyone saw that coming and the film is sensational because of it.
Can you imagine that film if the transvestite had simply been a woman?
You'd have another romantic film, that would have been lost to the ages. There's no way I'd be writing a post about it.
Now that unexpected moment is a great example of a MACRO unexpected beat. Macro unexpected beats are MAJOR unexpected moments that turn the direction of the film/story.
Simply put they're the twists.
Now a good twist is worth millions.
Literally.
M. Night earned $2.5m for coming up with the idea for the Sixth Sense. He then built a career writing and directing films with Macro unexpected beats.
(He also then bombed majorly - but that's another story)
Macro unexpected moments fuel films, but coming up with a good macro unexpected beat that hasn't been done yet - that's getting harder and harder.
Micro unexpected beats, on the other hand, are much easier to write, and while they don't necessarily have the same clout that a macro unexpected beat does, they can be powerful on the scene level.
Give me an example I hear you say...
Okay...
I was writing a scene in a new script I'm working on today, where the lead has to go to a public phone booth to phone a man that he's going to engage to kill his wife.
He has to use a public phone so the call can't be linked back to him.
Now the way I originally drafted this scene, was that he is driven to this public phone in a really bad neighborhood, in his limo (he'a a billionaire) then he makes the call and sets up the meet with the man who's going to kill his wife.
But when I looked at the scene - the expectation of the scene was met. Which means it's a dull scene.
Going into he scene, we already knew he was going to the public phone booth to phone the man to setup the meet. So if we already know that's going to happen, then we see it happen - it's boring as shit.
So I re-wrote the scene, this time - I inserted a moment halfway through the conversation with the killer, where a junkie grabs the Billionaire, puts a knife to his throat and demands his wallet.
Suddenly we have the unexpected.
Now, by adding this unexpected element, what I've also done, is added STAKES to the scene.
Previous - there were no scene stakes. You could argue that making the phone call and engaging the man to kill his wife carries stakes - being that he might be arrested for conspiracy to murder - but there's no urgency to those stakes, and they might also never come to be.
With a junkie holding a knife to his throat, there is the immediacy of the risk of life.
By adding this unexpected moment, I've also given the billionaire a moment to SHOW HIS FLAW.
Reminding the audience of the hero's flaw is a good idea. You just don't want to ram it down our throats too much.
My hero's flaw is that he allows the memory of his late father to control his life. And in this instance, as the junkie takes his wallet from him, the hero tries to barter to keep the wallet as it was given to him by his father.
I've shown the hero's flaw - he is willing to argue with a junkie over something that reminds him of his father. He's willing to risk his life for the sake of his father's memory.
The third thing it's done is to add urgency. Something had to be done about this situation that the hero is in.
The fourth thing - is it allowed me to change the charge of the scene.
What's the 'charge of the scene' I hear you ask?
Every scene should end at the opposite of where it started - emotionally speaking. Soooooo - to give an example - if your character starts the scene happy - it's good to finish sad. If they start composed, end the scene with them being flustered, or nervous.
What ever the emotional charge of the character at the start of the scene, try to flip that emotion by the end of the scene.
So in my given example - the hero started the scene composed and determined - and after the near death experience with the junkie - he is no longer as composed, cool, or calm. He's a nervous wreck.
This moment that I injected works because it fell within the bounds of the world I setup.
He had specifically driven into a really bad neighborhood to use a public phone. So when he's jumped by a junkie, it's not unrealistic within the context of the story.
If I had him at home, making the call from his cell, then someone broke in and put a knife to his throat, then left, and that break-in had nothing else to do with the story, then it would be unrealistic. It would feel like a 'movie moment.'
Coincidences happen all the time in real life. The moment you inject a coincidence into a film, the audience will groan, roll their eyes and call it what it is - cheap writing.
OKAY...
So what's the takeaway?
Go through the script you're working on. Look at each scene. Ask yourself - going into this scene what did the audience expect?
Then look at the scene - and if you deliver exactly what you promised - then rewrite it until something happens in that scene you were not expecting to happen.
If you can surprise yourself - as the writer - your reader will also be surprised and that is a good thing.
THE UNEXPECTED...
I read a lot of screenplays.
The majority of them are really quite good on one level or another. But the competition being what it is, good isn't good enough. Nor is 'really quite good.'
What a reader, or more importantly, what a producer is looking for is something that takes them by surprise. Something that pushes the bar, something that they weren't expecting.
Most readers/producers start reading a screenplay with a small amount of context. They will have read the logline. They have the title to go from. They will know the genre the script has supposedly been written in.
When the reader/producer has a logline, genre and a title to go from, they go into a read expecting certain things...
Now if you fail to meet that expectation (through poor writing), the results are, rejection. But even if you meet those expectations, odds are, you'll get rejection also. Why? Readers/producers want to be surprised. They want to be taken off guard.
One of the most common faults I see in screenplays is the predictability factor. When you read enough screenplays you can see the formula at work.
And while formula is a good thing on one hand, when formula is too pronounced in your writing, it detracts from your work, because the reader/producer are always two steps ahead of your story. When a reader/producer is expecting a scene to happen - and then it does, they start to check out.
My advice?
Write the unexpected. Now obviously I need to hedge that with - don't write the unexpected for the sake of writing the unexpected - and don't go too far with your 'unexpected moment'.
Within the world you have created, try to write moments that will surprise your character, yourself, and ultimately readers/producers and some day - your audience.
What do I mean by don't go too far?
When you think about it, writing something unexpected is pretty damn easy.
You could write a romantic story for 15 pages, then suddenly introduce aliens that grow out one of the leads eyeballs. That's pretty unexpected. It's also stupid. It's too far.
Keep your unexpected moments within the boundaries of the world you've created.
The Crying Game is probably the very best example of the unexpected.
(MAJOR SPOILER)
In fact...
If you haven't seen the crying game. Do not read the rest of this post. If you're one of the lucky few who have not experienced that film. Do not google anything about it.
Simply get yourself a copy and watch.
For those that have seen it, you know what I'm talking about.
The moment that it's revealed the male lead has fallen in love with a transvestite - the film has done the unexpected. There's no way anyone saw that coming and the film is sensational because of it.
Can you imagine that film if the transvestite had simply been a woman?
You'd have another romantic film, that would have been lost to the ages. There's no way I'd be writing a post about it.
Now that unexpected moment is a great example of a MACRO unexpected beat. Macro unexpected beats are MAJOR unexpected moments that turn the direction of the film/story.
Simply put they're the twists.
Now a good twist is worth millions.
Literally.
M. Night earned $2.5m for coming up with the idea for the Sixth Sense. He then built a career writing and directing films with Macro unexpected beats.
(He also then bombed majorly - but that's another story)
Macro unexpected moments fuel films, but coming up with a good macro unexpected beat that hasn't been done yet - that's getting harder and harder.
Micro unexpected beats, on the other hand, are much easier to write, and while they don't necessarily have the same clout that a macro unexpected beat does, they can be powerful on the scene level.
Give me an example I hear you say...
Okay...
I was writing a scene in a new script I'm working on today, where the lead has to go to a public phone booth to phone a man that he's going to engage to kill his wife.
He has to use a public phone so the call can't be linked back to him.
Now the way I originally drafted this scene, was that he is driven to this public phone in a really bad neighborhood, in his limo (he'a a billionaire) then he makes the call and sets up the meet with the man who's going to kill his wife.
But when I looked at the scene - the expectation of the scene was met. Which means it's a dull scene.
Going into he scene, we already knew he was going to the public phone booth to phone the man to setup the meet. So if we already know that's going to happen, then we see it happen - it's boring as shit.
So I re-wrote the scene, this time - I inserted a moment halfway through the conversation with the killer, where a junkie grabs the Billionaire, puts a knife to his throat and demands his wallet.
Suddenly we have the unexpected.
Now, by adding this unexpected element, what I've also done, is added STAKES to the scene.
Previous - there were no scene stakes. You could argue that making the phone call and engaging the man to kill his wife carries stakes - being that he might be arrested for conspiracy to murder - but there's no urgency to those stakes, and they might also never come to be.
With a junkie holding a knife to his throat, there is the immediacy of the risk of life.
By adding this unexpected moment, I've also given the billionaire a moment to SHOW HIS FLAW.
Reminding the audience of the hero's flaw is a good idea. You just don't want to ram it down our throats too much.
My hero's flaw is that he allows the memory of his late father to control his life. And in this instance, as the junkie takes his wallet from him, the hero tries to barter to keep the wallet as it was given to him by his father.
I've shown the hero's flaw - he is willing to argue with a junkie over something that reminds him of his father. He's willing to risk his life for the sake of his father's memory.
The third thing it's done is to add urgency. Something had to be done about this situation that the hero is in.
The fourth thing - is it allowed me to change the charge of the scene.
What's the 'charge of the scene' I hear you ask?
Every scene should end at the opposite of where it started - emotionally speaking. Soooooo - to give an example - if your character starts the scene happy - it's good to finish sad. If they start composed, end the scene with them being flustered, or nervous.
What ever the emotional charge of the character at the start of the scene, try to flip that emotion by the end of the scene.
So in my given example - the hero started the scene composed and determined - and after the near death experience with the junkie - he is no longer as composed, cool, or calm. He's a nervous wreck.
This moment that I injected works because it fell within the bounds of the world I setup.
He had specifically driven into a really bad neighborhood to use a public phone. So when he's jumped by a junkie, it's not unrealistic within the context of the story.
If I had him at home, making the call from his cell, then someone broke in and put a knife to his throat, then left, and that break-in had nothing else to do with the story, then it would be unrealistic. It would feel like a 'movie moment.'
Coincidences happen all the time in real life. The moment you inject a coincidence into a film, the audience will groan, roll their eyes and call it what it is - cheap writing.
OKAY...
So what's the takeaway?
Go through the script you're working on. Look at each scene. Ask yourself - going into this scene what did the audience expect?
Then look at the scene - and if you deliver exactly what you promised - then rewrite it until something happens in that scene you were not expecting to happen.
If you can surprise yourself - as the writer - your reader will also be surprised and that is a good thing.
Thursday, 16 June 2016
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FLAW
I read a horror feature screenplay last night called MARY.
Among many problems with the script the core problem that I kept coming back to was that none of the characters had a flaw.
Why is this so important I hear you ask?
There's essentially two levels to any feature screenplay. There is the OUTER JOURNEY - the things that happen to the hero & characters and the things that they do.
Then there is the INNER JOURNEY. This is the battle within that the HERO and hopefully other characters will go through over the course of the story.
When you write a story where the Hero and the other main players don't have any inner conflict going on, you're basically only allowing yourself to write HALF a story.
Everything that happens to the characters will be external. Events that may seem really cool and interesting will not resonate on any level other than spectacle.
Why is it that a TV series like MADMEN can be so engaging and successful yet have so little going on by way of external events?
The answer is simple - because each and every character in that show has a deeper level to them. They all have internal conflict. They all have widely varying flaws.
When Madmen was new to the world and had its initial buzz going, I heard a radio presenter refer to it as 'that show where nothing happens, but you can't stop watching.'
That presenter didn't understand that there was a LOT HAPPENING, it was just all inner journey.
Most people, when asked to summarise a film they saw will repeat the external events...'X went to this country and kidnapped this person, but that person turned out to be the wrong person, and they ended up working together to catch the right person...' etc... etc... you get the idea.
For what ever reason, we don't summarise the inner conflict of the characters in a film, even though it is the inner journey with which we resonate the most.
The inner journey is what we connect to on a human level. Spectacle will only keep us engaged for a certain period of time. Watching a cold CIA operative go to a country, kidnap someone, then interrogate them will only be engaging for so long. It's the inner journey of the CIA agent that will really keep us glued to the story.
To create a truly successful screenplay, you must create a connection between the watcher and the characters on screen. There needs to be a VICARIOUS connection.
There are two KEY ways to create this connection. The first - simplest way - is to endear us toward your character - make us like them. That's simply called empathy.
Make your hero (and other characters you want the audience to like) DO things that will make us like them.
This is a HUGE mistake I see in a lot of screenplays. There is this notion, that just because YOU the WRITER created this character your audience will fall in love with them in the same way you have?
Characters you create are like your babies. You love them because they are a part of you. Others that are close to you (friends, family) will love your characters but to a lesser degree, simply because you created them. This is why it's not a good idea to get friends and family to review your screenplays - no matter what they say - they are bias.
A complete stranger will look at your characters in a completely different light. Like all people we meet in real life, we judge them by the content of their character - meaning - we judge them by the way they act, the things they say and the things they do, and also the things they don't do.
As for real life, the same is true for the fictional world of screenplays. You must make your characters say, act, and do things that will make your audience like them.
Now the second main way to create that all-important vicarious connection between audience and film character, is through the flaw.
Everyone in real life has a flaw.
Many, many people would argue that they don't. But think of the hubris of that statement. To argue you have NO FLAW is to argue that you are a perfect human being.
Would you ever argue that about yourself in all sincerity?
Perhaps a better test would be, to think of all the people you know and ask, are any of those people absolutely perfect human beings.
There will be people who have larger more obvious flaws, certainly, but I doubt there will be people who are without flaw.
Having a flaw is what makes us human. This is why we identify with characters who have flaws. To write a character that doesn't have a flaw, makes them un-human.
A very important aspect of the flaw is RELIABILITY.
A character with the flaw of a phobia of flying bricks, is going to be more difficult to relate to than a person who is fearful of change.
The latter flaw is shared by far more people than the former.
The flaw doesn't have to be singular. It's fine to give your characters multiple flaws. Many people in real life suffer from many micro flaws.
Another important thing about the flaw to note, is that it's important to give all of your main characters flaws. I often read screenplays where the hero has a good flaw, but the ancillary characters have none. These kind of scripts read as un-true for obvious reasons.
There is also the problem of the over-pronounced flaw. Be carful of overstating your characters' flaws.
The late, famous, Blake Snyder said that within the first 5 pages of your screenplay you should have a character openly state what your hero's flaw is.
While that advice might have stood up 10-15 years ago, the movie going public, and film making people are all too aware of the importance of the flaw. To over state it as Snyder suggests is too obtuse these days. Subtly is important in the delivery of the flaw.
So now that we've established the importance of the flaw, let's look at how that flaw relates to the structure of your screenplay.
ORDINARY WORLD
Here we find your hero living their life as per normal. They don't achieve their full potential BECAUSE their flaw holds them back. OR their flaw is causing their problems.
THE INCITING INCIDENT --
You will often hear people describe the inciting incident as an event that shakes up the hero's world and sends them on a journey. That's only HALF true.
What an inciting incident does is it TESTS the hero's flaw. If the inciting indent has nothing to do with the hero's flaw, then the story will be disjointed.
The reason the inciting incident is so important to the hero is that it highlights the inner problem your hero has been ignoring, UNTIL NOW.
Just a quick story structure note - there's a lot of confusion regarding the INCITING INCIDENT and the CALL TO ADVENTURE. There is a common misnomer that they are the same thing.
They are not the same thing.
The very simplest way to define their differences is...
The INCITING INCIDENT is the EVENT that happens that WILL change the hero's life and test their flaw.
THE CALL TO ADVENTURE is when the hero LEARNS of the INCITING INCIDENT.
Let's look at Jaws really quickly. The Inciting Incident is the shark attack in the opening scene.
The call to adventure is when Brody finds out about the death.
They are two very different moments.
The II and the CTA can happen simultaneously say - if Brody had witnessed the girl be eaten in the opening scene.
YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?
Good... moving on...
THE REFUSAL OF THE CALL
The hero refuses the call - BECAUSE it tests their flaw. Until now, their way of dealing with their flaw has been to ignore it... try to pretend it doesn't exist.
THE CATALYST
This is the second inciting incident, that second major event early on that forces the hero to accept the journey. Again, it tests the hero's flaw, this time to a much stronger degree than the first test. This time, the hero can not ignore the adventure.
This is the first moment that their inner journey begins. They do something they haven't done before. Until now, their flaw has been controlling them, they now confront their flaw, and go outside their comfort zone. This is the first step on their inner journey of confronting and ultimately resolving their flaw.
In Star Wars, the catalyst is when Luke comes home to find his uncle and aunt and his home have been destroyed. He now has no choice but to go on his adventure...
THE FIRST ACT TURN...
The hero now begins their adventure...
They move into a new world that is alien to them. This new world can be an entirely new environment, OR it can be a change of circumstances in their existing world.
This new environment, or this new set of circumstances is difficult for the hero because it tests their flaw. There are decisions they must make that normally their flaw would force them to ignore.
SECOND ACT 1st MAJOR EVENT
SECOND ACT 2nd MAJOR EVENT
Two major events occur on the hero's journey. Each event is a test of the hero's flaw. In the first case, the hero reacts in a completely flawed manner and something detrimental happens.
Then in the second event, there is another test of the hero's flaw, and while they don't react in the same way as the first event, they do still act in a flawed way. Again, the result is detrimental.
MID POINT
Here the hero faces a LARGE TEST of their flaw. This is often a life or death situation. They react in a flawed way, but because of the close call, they are now consciously aware of their flaw. They can see that continuing on this flawed path will end in a really bad way. Very often death for them or a loved one.
There are many other things that happen at the mid point, but I'm only focusing on the hero's journey as it pertains to the FLAW for this article.
APPRAOCH TO THE CAVE
The hero makes a major attempt to change their ways, to resolve their flaw, but it's a case of too little too late, and they are pushed toward...
THE ORDEAL
This is the lowest point in the film. Lower than the mid point. The hero will find themselves in a place where there is seemingly no escape.
It is here they look back on why-and-how they arrived at this awful juncture in their life. They truly realise and accept that it is their flaw that brought them here. If they hadn't been flawed, if they hadn't made all these bad decisions, they would not have ended up here.
This is known as the CONFESSION.
The hero as good as states their flaw. NOW, in keeping with the rule of subtly, I'd actually advise against having the hero say out loud verbatim - 'my flaw is X and if I didn't do X I wouldn't be here.' That's far too on the nose. Have this beat occur in a subtle way.
THE REWARD
Because the hero has now confessed to their flaw. they are REWARDED in some way that allows them to get out of their predicament. Now that they are no longer flawed, they start to think in a new way, act in a new way, this change of character allows them to break free from the shackles of the past and forge forward.
THE CLIMAX.
The hero has now completely resolved their flaw. They are no longer the broken person they once were. They have now in fact shape-shifted into a MENTOR - someone who can help guide others on their journeys.
Because your hero is no longer flawed - they confront their nemesis - the SHADOW and defeat them. During the conflict, there is a test of their flaw - but now they are no longer flawed - they make the right decision - which allows them to overcome the shadow.
DENOUEMENT -
The hero returns to their ordinary world a changed person.
They are again confronted with a test - often the exact same test we saw in the opening scene, but they now react in an unflawed manner. We now see that they have learned from their journey and most importantly they have CHANGED.
There... you have it... the importance of the flaw.
I hope it helps you with your current/next screenplay.
Happy writing....
Among many problems with the script the core problem that I kept coming back to was that none of the characters had a flaw.
Why is this so important I hear you ask?
There's essentially two levels to any feature screenplay. There is the OUTER JOURNEY - the things that happen to the hero & characters and the things that they do.
Then there is the INNER JOURNEY. This is the battle within that the HERO and hopefully other characters will go through over the course of the story.
When you write a story where the Hero and the other main players don't have any inner conflict going on, you're basically only allowing yourself to write HALF a story.
Everything that happens to the characters will be external. Events that may seem really cool and interesting will not resonate on any level other than spectacle.
Why is it that a TV series like MADMEN can be so engaging and successful yet have so little going on by way of external events?
The answer is simple - because each and every character in that show has a deeper level to them. They all have internal conflict. They all have widely varying flaws.
When Madmen was new to the world and had its initial buzz going, I heard a radio presenter refer to it as 'that show where nothing happens, but you can't stop watching.'
That presenter didn't understand that there was a LOT HAPPENING, it was just all inner journey.
Most people, when asked to summarise a film they saw will repeat the external events...'X went to this country and kidnapped this person, but that person turned out to be the wrong person, and they ended up working together to catch the right person...' etc... etc... you get the idea.
For what ever reason, we don't summarise the inner conflict of the characters in a film, even though it is the inner journey with which we resonate the most.
The inner journey is what we connect to on a human level. Spectacle will only keep us engaged for a certain period of time. Watching a cold CIA operative go to a country, kidnap someone, then interrogate them will only be engaging for so long. It's the inner journey of the CIA agent that will really keep us glued to the story.
To create a truly successful screenplay, you must create a connection between the watcher and the characters on screen. There needs to be a VICARIOUS connection.
There are two KEY ways to create this connection. The first - simplest way - is to endear us toward your character - make us like them. That's simply called empathy.
Make your hero (and other characters you want the audience to like) DO things that will make us like them.
This is a HUGE mistake I see in a lot of screenplays. There is this notion, that just because YOU the WRITER created this character your audience will fall in love with them in the same way you have?
Characters you create are like your babies. You love them because they are a part of you. Others that are close to you (friends, family) will love your characters but to a lesser degree, simply because you created them. This is why it's not a good idea to get friends and family to review your screenplays - no matter what they say - they are bias.
A complete stranger will look at your characters in a completely different light. Like all people we meet in real life, we judge them by the content of their character - meaning - we judge them by the way they act, the things they say and the things they do, and also the things they don't do.
As for real life, the same is true for the fictional world of screenplays. You must make your characters say, act, and do things that will make your audience like them.
Now the second main way to create that all-important vicarious connection between audience and film character, is through the flaw.
Everyone in real life has a flaw.
Many, many people would argue that they don't. But think of the hubris of that statement. To argue you have NO FLAW is to argue that you are a perfect human being.
Would you ever argue that about yourself in all sincerity?
Perhaps a better test would be, to think of all the people you know and ask, are any of those people absolutely perfect human beings.
There will be people who have larger more obvious flaws, certainly, but I doubt there will be people who are without flaw.
Having a flaw is what makes us human. This is why we identify with characters who have flaws. To write a character that doesn't have a flaw, makes them un-human.
A very important aspect of the flaw is RELIABILITY.
A character with the flaw of a phobia of flying bricks, is going to be more difficult to relate to than a person who is fearful of change.
The latter flaw is shared by far more people than the former.
The flaw doesn't have to be singular. It's fine to give your characters multiple flaws. Many people in real life suffer from many micro flaws.
Another important thing about the flaw to note, is that it's important to give all of your main characters flaws. I often read screenplays where the hero has a good flaw, but the ancillary characters have none. These kind of scripts read as un-true for obvious reasons.
There is also the problem of the over-pronounced flaw. Be carful of overstating your characters' flaws.
The late, famous, Blake Snyder said that within the first 5 pages of your screenplay you should have a character openly state what your hero's flaw is.
While that advice might have stood up 10-15 years ago, the movie going public, and film making people are all too aware of the importance of the flaw. To over state it as Snyder suggests is too obtuse these days. Subtly is important in the delivery of the flaw.
So now that we've established the importance of the flaw, let's look at how that flaw relates to the structure of your screenplay.
ORDINARY WORLD
Here we find your hero living their life as per normal. They don't achieve their full potential BECAUSE their flaw holds them back. OR their flaw is causing their problems.
THE INCITING INCIDENT --
You will often hear people describe the inciting incident as an event that shakes up the hero's world and sends them on a journey. That's only HALF true.
What an inciting incident does is it TESTS the hero's flaw. If the inciting indent has nothing to do with the hero's flaw, then the story will be disjointed.
The reason the inciting incident is so important to the hero is that it highlights the inner problem your hero has been ignoring, UNTIL NOW.
Just a quick story structure note - there's a lot of confusion regarding the INCITING INCIDENT and the CALL TO ADVENTURE. There is a common misnomer that they are the same thing.
They are not the same thing.
The very simplest way to define their differences is...
The INCITING INCIDENT is the EVENT that happens that WILL change the hero's life and test their flaw.
THE CALL TO ADVENTURE is when the hero LEARNS of the INCITING INCIDENT.
Let's look at Jaws really quickly. The Inciting Incident is the shark attack in the opening scene.
The call to adventure is when Brody finds out about the death.
They are two very different moments.
The II and the CTA can happen simultaneously say - if Brody had witnessed the girl be eaten in the opening scene.
YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?
Good... moving on...
THE REFUSAL OF THE CALL
The hero refuses the call - BECAUSE it tests their flaw. Until now, their way of dealing with their flaw has been to ignore it... try to pretend it doesn't exist.
THE CATALYST
This is the second inciting incident, that second major event early on that forces the hero to accept the journey. Again, it tests the hero's flaw, this time to a much stronger degree than the first test. This time, the hero can not ignore the adventure.
This is the first moment that their inner journey begins. They do something they haven't done before. Until now, their flaw has been controlling them, they now confront their flaw, and go outside their comfort zone. This is the first step on their inner journey of confronting and ultimately resolving their flaw.
In Star Wars, the catalyst is when Luke comes home to find his uncle and aunt and his home have been destroyed. He now has no choice but to go on his adventure...
THE FIRST ACT TURN...
The hero now begins their adventure...
They move into a new world that is alien to them. This new world can be an entirely new environment, OR it can be a change of circumstances in their existing world.
This new environment, or this new set of circumstances is difficult for the hero because it tests their flaw. There are decisions they must make that normally their flaw would force them to ignore.
SECOND ACT 1st MAJOR EVENT
SECOND ACT 2nd MAJOR EVENT
Two major events occur on the hero's journey. Each event is a test of the hero's flaw. In the first case, the hero reacts in a completely flawed manner and something detrimental happens.
Then in the second event, there is another test of the hero's flaw, and while they don't react in the same way as the first event, they do still act in a flawed way. Again, the result is detrimental.
MID POINT
Here the hero faces a LARGE TEST of their flaw. This is often a life or death situation. They react in a flawed way, but because of the close call, they are now consciously aware of their flaw. They can see that continuing on this flawed path will end in a really bad way. Very often death for them or a loved one.
There are many other things that happen at the mid point, but I'm only focusing on the hero's journey as it pertains to the FLAW for this article.
APPRAOCH TO THE CAVE
The hero makes a major attempt to change their ways, to resolve their flaw, but it's a case of too little too late, and they are pushed toward...
THE ORDEAL
This is the lowest point in the film. Lower than the mid point. The hero will find themselves in a place where there is seemingly no escape.
It is here they look back on why-and-how they arrived at this awful juncture in their life. They truly realise and accept that it is their flaw that brought them here. If they hadn't been flawed, if they hadn't made all these bad decisions, they would not have ended up here.
This is known as the CONFESSION.
The hero as good as states their flaw. NOW, in keeping with the rule of subtly, I'd actually advise against having the hero say out loud verbatim - 'my flaw is X and if I didn't do X I wouldn't be here.' That's far too on the nose. Have this beat occur in a subtle way.
THE REWARD
Because the hero has now confessed to their flaw. they are REWARDED in some way that allows them to get out of their predicament. Now that they are no longer flawed, they start to think in a new way, act in a new way, this change of character allows them to break free from the shackles of the past and forge forward.
THE CLIMAX.
The hero has now completely resolved their flaw. They are no longer the broken person they once were. They have now in fact shape-shifted into a MENTOR - someone who can help guide others on their journeys.
Because your hero is no longer flawed - they confront their nemesis - the SHADOW and defeat them. During the conflict, there is a test of their flaw - but now they are no longer flawed - they make the right decision - which allows them to overcome the shadow.
DENOUEMENT -
The hero returns to their ordinary world a changed person.
They are again confronted with a test - often the exact same test we saw in the opening scene, but they now react in an unflawed manner. We now see that they have learned from their journey and most importantly they have CHANGED.
There... you have it... the importance of the flaw.
I hope it helps you with your current/next screenplay.
Happy writing....
Tuesday, 14 June 2016
MIDNIGHT TEXAS - TV PILOT - NBC
LOGLINE: After a near death run in with an angry spirit, a psychic with the ability to not only speak with, but also see ghosts flees to the remote town of Midnight, Texas, in the hope of relaxing and recuperating, only to discover this small, nowhere town is the epicentre and home of all mythical creatures imaginable.
SCRIPT BIO: 2016 Pilot for NBC. Based on the Midnight Texas trilogy by Charlaine Harris.
WRITER: Monica Owusu-Breen.
STORY:
We meet MANFRED (20s), a psychic who speaks with and sees ghosts as he performs a seance for a client of his, RACHEL (50s).
When Manfred tells the client's dead husband that she is moving on, starting a new relationship with another man, the spirit of the dead husband crosses over from the netherworld, possesses Manfred's body and almost kills Rachel.
It's only through Manfred's powerful skill and control that he manages to banish the spirit of the dead husband from his body at the last moment.
After that close call, Manfred decides to get away. He needs some downtime, time to get his head back together.
As he finds himself driving with no destination in mind, the spirit of his dead Grandma appears next to him in the car. She advises him to go to a remote nowhere town in the desert. Not one to ignore sage advice from the dead, Manfred sets course for Midnight Texas.
Midnight, at first appears to be just another one street town in the middle of nowhere. A forgotten place. That is, until you meet the characters living here.
Without giving away too much of the storyline, we meet a real life practising witch, a vampire, a werewolf and... you get the idea.
This town is anything but ordinary.
Manfred is introduced to all these incredible characters via a series of fascinating, often life endangering encounters. Then around the half way mark, one of the main players, a young lady - is found killed.
Investigation into her death soon reveals that she has a past no one knew about.
A past that comes to town willing to wreck havoc on anyone and everyone to reap vengeance for her death.
In the closing throws of the pilot one of the main characters is wrongly accused of killing the young lady and is taken into custody.
A freak of nature in so many ways himself, Manfred decides to stay and work with the band of mythical creatures to exonerate the man wrongly accused and to discover who the real killer was, and more importantly, to discover the secrets of this strange town.
INITIAL REACTION:
I've been reading a lot of TV pilots recently. I find the approach to TV a refreshing switch up from the format of Film.
TV seems to be where the good writing is at these days. With TV there is an innate need to 'cut to the chase.' Get the story told as efficiently as possible.
Quite often with feature films, there is a sense of laziness to the story telling. There is a notion that - 'This is a film, let me take my time getting to my point, let me show you this character walking through a doorway, or driving up to a house even though you learn nothing about who that character is through these actions.'
In TV all the fat is cut away and all you're left with are compelling beats that pull the story along.
Ok, that's a generalisation, there are TV pilots that wander and take their time, but on the whole I'm noticing that TV writers are aware of how important it is to 'get to the point' as fast as you can.
This TV pilot is a great example of good, clean, fast writing.
Not only is the writing itself A grade, but the storytelling never wanders. Every scene is as short as it can be, every scene starts as late as possible and ends as soon as possible.
It is so refreshing to read a well orchestrated script.
CONCEPT:
Fantastic idea here. A psychic who can see and interact with the dead, finds that he's not the only person on earth with freakish abilities. He is 'guided' to a town where mythical creatures live among ordinary folk, and is embroiled in a murder mystery.
This is an idea that immediately jumps out at you, you can imagine all the interesting characters - the witch, the werewolf, the vampire etc... all these great folklore creatures living as humans in a small town.
This is a great example of high concept AND a character piece. More often than not, when you have a high concept script, be it film or TV, the characters are underdeveloped. And on the flip coin, when you have a really well developed character piece, with sensational players that explode off the page, you will find that the story itself is ho-hum, nothing to write home about.
It's when you marry those two all important aspects of story together that you end up with a powerful piece such as this.
CONCEPT RATING: 9/10
THE TAKEAWAY: Look at your latest script. Break it down into these two core parts. IDEA and CHARACTERS. Look at each one separately. Does you IDEA stand up? Is it different enough to stand out from the masses? Or is it really just another mystery, just another crime drama, just another comedy etc...
Try and single out that one aspect of your script that you can hold up and say, look, this is my unique angle, this is WHY my script is different to all the rest.
If you can't honestly do that - then re-write your idea until you have an ANGLE. If you don't have an angle, no matter how well executed, you're just not going to get the reads, just not going to get it over the line.
Likewise with your characters. Look at each character and think about how well developed they are. Again, be as honest with yourself as you can be. Does each character have a flaw of some sort? Or if not a flaw, do they have a unique personality to them? What makes them stand out? If there's nothing making them stand out from the rest, re-write them until they have their own unique flavor.
FORM:
Form here is exceptional - except for one thing. The writer often directs the camera. Now for an established writer adapting a pre existing novel as an assignment for an established TV company, she can get away with this.
For everyone else out there - never - ever - direct the camera in your script.
End of discussion.
FORM RATING: 9/10
STRUCTURE:
TV structure differs greatly from film structure.
With film - the Hero's Journey structure guides the story.
In TV - there are less defined beats that are necessary to hit to have a successful show.
By the end of a film it is important to have resolved the main character's flaw, in a TV series, it is often the main character's flaw that is the driving force behind the series. When you resolve their flaw, you've resolved the series.
Can you imagine if Dexter resolved his innate urge to kill serial killers. You'd have no show.
Or if House wasn't an asshole, what kind of show would House be?
So the hero's journey is not applicable to the TV format the way it is to film.
This begs the question - what is the structure of TV?
Well firstly, for most pilots - there is the TEASER - a short opening hook that sets up the main player and conflict in the series. This is followed by four acts of roughly equal length.
Each act is best served if it ends with a hook, or a cliffhanger to pull the viewer into the next act to find out what's going to happen.
The one thing I've noticed with successful TV shows is that CONFLICT drives the story.
TV structure breaks down to the scene level. If you have a scene that has no conflict, you're going to have a dull lifeless scene. Put too many of these back to back and you're going to have an unwatchable show.
Doesn't matter what genre you're writing, if EVERY scene doesn't have conflict of some sort, your script will bomb.
Conflict is something that this script does really well. Almost every scene is loaded with conflict, and consequently, the story is compelling and pulls you along.
STRUCTURE RATING: 8/10
THE TAKE AWAY: Inject conflict. Go through your script - be it TV or film - and if you have a scene that has NO CONFLICT - re-write it until it does.
CHARACTERS/DIALOGUE
Again, this is another aspect of the script that is well executed. Every character here is unique, and well defined.
Dialogue is fine, but I'd say this is the only part of this script that didn't pop. Every other part of this script was really well executed, above par, but the dialogue, while it feels well done, it's not as good as all the other aspects.
There's a great dialogue test you can do. Remove all the character names from your script, then give it a read. If this were the first time you'd ever read the script, could you tell who was speaking simply by the way they're talking?
If you can't, then go through and look at working in a specific way for each character to speak. This is a fine line, as you don't want to inject too much eccentricity into your characters or they won't feel real. Just give them enough uniqueness to make them stand out from the others.
CHARACTERS/DIALOGUE RATING 8/10
THE TAKE AWAY: Characters are often defined by the way they speak. You have a great control over how the audience will perceive the characters by the way you make them talk.
Are they fast witted? Are they reclusive and hence mumble? Do they say what they're thinking when really they should be discreet with their thoughts? Use the way your character speaks to define their personality
VOICE:
This writer has a great voice. This comes from just how well executed the story is and just how well it is written. Voice is the sum of all the individual parts of your story. The stronger the parts - the stronger your voice.
PRODUCTION:
Relatively easy to shoot. Set in a small dessert town, with minor special effects. I can see this pilot going to series easily.
OVERALL TAKE AWAY;
Work on your IDEA FIRST - until it pops. Until you can be sure you're working on something unique.
Secondly, work on your CHARACTERS until you have really well defined players.
Next work on your structure. Write it and re-write it in a basic form until you have every scene outlined.
Then and ONLY THEN start writing...
And when you do - make sure that EVERY SCENE has conflict and that EVERY SCENE starts as late as possible and ends as soon as possible.
AND don't ever write a character walking through a door, up a set of stairs, or driving up to a location UNLESS that action is used specifically to show us something about the character or to introduce conflict.
SCRIPT BIO: 2016 Pilot for NBC. Based on the Midnight Texas trilogy by Charlaine Harris.
WRITER: Monica Owusu-Breen.
STORY:
We meet MANFRED (20s), a psychic who speaks with and sees ghosts as he performs a seance for a client of his, RACHEL (50s).
When Manfred tells the client's dead husband that she is moving on, starting a new relationship with another man, the spirit of the dead husband crosses over from the netherworld, possesses Manfred's body and almost kills Rachel.
It's only through Manfred's powerful skill and control that he manages to banish the spirit of the dead husband from his body at the last moment.
After that close call, Manfred decides to get away. He needs some downtime, time to get his head back together.
As he finds himself driving with no destination in mind, the spirit of his dead Grandma appears next to him in the car. She advises him to go to a remote nowhere town in the desert. Not one to ignore sage advice from the dead, Manfred sets course for Midnight Texas.
Midnight, at first appears to be just another one street town in the middle of nowhere. A forgotten place. That is, until you meet the characters living here.
Without giving away too much of the storyline, we meet a real life practising witch, a vampire, a werewolf and... you get the idea.
This town is anything but ordinary.
Manfred is introduced to all these incredible characters via a series of fascinating, often life endangering encounters. Then around the half way mark, one of the main players, a young lady - is found killed.
Investigation into her death soon reveals that she has a past no one knew about.
A past that comes to town willing to wreck havoc on anyone and everyone to reap vengeance for her death.
In the closing throws of the pilot one of the main characters is wrongly accused of killing the young lady and is taken into custody.
A freak of nature in so many ways himself, Manfred decides to stay and work with the band of mythical creatures to exonerate the man wrongly accused and to discover who the real killer was, and more importantly, to discover the secrets of this strange town.
INITIAL REACTION:
I've been reading a lot of TV pilots recently. I find the approach to TV a refreshing switch up from the format of Film.
TV seems to be where the good writing is at these days. With TV there is an innate need to 'cut to the chase.' Get the story told as efficiently as possible.
Quite often with feature films, there is a sense of laziness to the story telling. There is a notion that - 'This is a film, let me take my time getting to my point, let me show you this character walking through a doorway, or driving up to a house even though you learn nothing about who that character is through these actions.'
In TV all the fat is cut away and all you're left with are compelling beats that pull the story along.
Ok, that's a generalisation, there are TV pilots that wander and take their time, but on the whole I'm noticing that TV writers are aware of how important it is to 'get to the point' as fast as you can.
This TV pilot is a great example of good, clean, fast writing.
Not only is the writing itself A grade, but the storytelling never wanders. Every scene is as short as it can be, every scene starts as late as possible and ends as soon as possible.
It is so refreshing to read a well orchestrated script.
CONCEPT:
Fantastic idea here. A psychic who can see and interact with the dead, finds that he's not the only person on earth with freakish abilities. He is 'guided' to a town where mythical creatures live among ordinary folk, and is embroiled in a murder mystery.
This is an idea that immediately jumps out at you, you can imagine all the interesting characters - the witch, the werewolf, the vampire etc... all these great folklore creatures living as humans in a small town.
This is a great example of high concept AND a character piece. More often than not, when you have a high concept script, be it film or TV, the characters are underdeveloped. And on the flip coin, when you have a really well developed character piece, with sensational players that explode off the page, you will find that the story itself is ho-hum, nothing to write home about.
It's when you marry those two all important aspects of story together that you end up with a powerful piece such as this.
CONCEPT RATING: 9/10
THE TAKEAWAY: Look at your latest script. Break it down into these two core parts. IDEA and CHARACTERS. Look at each one separately. Does you IDEA stand up? Is it different enough to stand out from the masses? Or is it really just another mystery, just another crime drama, just another comedy etc...
Try and single out that one aspect of your script that you can hold up and say, look, this is my unique angle, this is WHY my script is different to all the rest.
If you can't honestly do that - then re-write your idea until you have an ANGLE. If you don't have an angle, no matter how well executed, you're just not going to get the reads, just not going to get it over the line.
Likewise with your characters. Look at each character and think about how well developed they are. Again, be as honest with yourself as you can be. Does each character have a flaw of some sort? Or if not a flaw, do they have a unique personality to them? What makes them stand out? If there's nothing making them stand out from the rest, re-write them until they have their own unique flavor.
FORM:
Form here is exceptional - except for one thing. The writer often directs the camera. Now for an established writer adapting a pre existing novel as an assignment for an established TV company, she can get away with this.
For everyone else out there - never - ever - direct the camera in your script.
End of discussion.
FORM RATING: 9/10
STRUCTURE:
TV structure differs greatly from film structure.
With film - the Hero's Journey structure guides the story.
In TV - there are less defined beats that are necessary to hit to have a successful show.
By the end of a film it is important to have resolved the main character's flaw, in a TV series, it is often the main character's flaw that is the driving force behind the series. When you resolve their flaw, you've resolved the series.
Can you imagine if Dexter resolved his innate urge to kill serial killers. You'd have no show.
Or if House wasn't an asshole, what kind of show would House be?
So the hero's journey is not applicable to the TV format the way it is to film.
This begs the question - what is the structure of TV?
Well firstly, for most pilots - there is the TEASER - a short opening hook that sets up the main player and conflict in the series. This is followed by four acts of roughly equal length.
Each act is best served if it ends with a hook, or a cliffhanger to pull the viewer into the next act to find out what's going to happen.
The one thing I've noticed with successful TV shows is that CONFLICT drives the story.
TV structure breaks down to the scene level. If you have a scene that has no conflict, you're going to have a dull lifeless scene. Put too many of these back to back and you're going to have an unwatchable show.
Doesn't matter what genre you're writing, if EVERY scene doesn't have conflict of some sort, your script will bomb.
Conflict is something that this script does really well. Almost every scene is loaded with conflict, and consequently, the story is compelling and pulls you along.
STRUCTURE RATING: 8/10
THE TAKE AWAY: Inject conflict. Go through your script - be it TV or film - and if you have a scene that has NO CONFLICT - re-write it until it does.
CHARACTERS/DIALOGUE
Again, this is another aspect of the script that is well executed. Every character here is unique, and well defined.
Dialogue is fine, but I'd say this is the only part of this script that didn't pop. Every other part of this script was really well executed, above par, but the dialogue, while it feels well done, it's not as good as all the other aspects.
There's a great dialogue test you can do. Remove all the character names from your script, then give it a read. If this were the first time you'd ever read the script, could you tell who was speaking simply by the way they're talking?
If you can't, then go through and look at working in a specific way for each character to speak. This is a fine line, as you don't want to inject too much eccentricity into your characters or they won't feel real. Just give them enough uniqueness to make them stand out from the others.
CHARACTERS/DIALOGUE RATING 8/10
THE TAKE AWAY: Characters are often defined by the way they speak. You have a great control over how the audience will perceive the characters by the way you make them talk.
Are they fast witted? Are they reclusive and hence mumble? Do they say what they're thinking when really they should be discreet with their thoughts? Use the way your character speaks to define their personality
VOICE:
This writer has a great voice. This comes from just how well executed the story is and just how well it is written. Voice is the sum of all the individual parts of your story. The stronger the parts - the stronger your voice.
PRODUCTION:
Relatively easy to shoot. Set in a small dessert town, with minor special effects. I can see this pilot going to series easily.
OVERALL TAKE AWAY;
Work on your IDEA FIRST - until it pops. Until you can be sure you're working on something unique.
Secondly, work on your CHARACTERS until you have really well defined players.
Next work on your structure. Write it and re-write it in a basic form until you have every scene outlined.
Then and ONLY THEN start writing...
And when you do - make sure that EVERY SCENE has conflict and that EVERY SCENE starts as late as possible and ends as soon as possible.
AND don't ever write a character walking through a door, up a set of stairs, or driving up to a location UNLESS that action is used specifically to show us something about the character or to introduce conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)