TRANSCENDENCE - FILM ANALYSIS

LEARNING FROM THE MISTAKES THE FILM TRANSCENDENCE MADE.

Today I thought I'd do something different. Rather than analyse an unproduced screenplay, I will analyse the film Transcendence. 

Transcendence has a great concept -  singularity - the point when computers become self aware. Essentially when AI computers learn how to think for themselves. 

I'm no expert in the field, but from what I've read online, this idea is no longer just a sci-fi concept but could - theoretically - become a reality. 

THE NUMBERS:

Transcendence cost $100 million to make. Normally when a studio puts that kind of money into making a film - it expects to make at least $300 mill at the box office. 

The reason for this is the general rule off thumb that whatever your film's budget is, you need to triple that at the box office to JUST TO BREAK EVEN. 

So this film was a financial failure. 

It's got a 6.3 on IMDB - which isn't too bad - but one thing I've noticed with IMDB is that where once it was fairly on the money with its ratings - recently - it's often way off.

Rotten Tomatoes has this film at 20% - which is waaaaay more accurate.

So let's look at what this film did wrong.

The point of this review isn't to point out how bad this film is, it's to be constructive and LEARN from its mistakes.

CONCEPT:

The concept is actually pretty strong - an AI computer threatens to take over the world and potentially wipe out the human race. 

How did this film fail to deliver on that idea?

The first MAJOR problem with this film was the lack of --

EMPATHY:

Tell me ONE thing that Johnny Depp's character did that made you like him?

That's right - nothing. 

He's a brilliant scientist. Good for him. That doesn't make me like him. We like heroes who DO things that make us like them.

Okay, so look at the other characters in the film. Name for me ONE character who actually DID one thing that made us like them?

That's right - not one character went out of their way to do something to make us like them.

With no empathy, there is no VICARIOUS connection between the audience and the film. With no connection between the viewer and the subject matter - we're not going to have an emotional response to the film. 

That was bullet hole #1. Lack of empathy. 

The second major problem with this film - was the lack of --

FLAW:

Johnny Depp didn't have a flaw. He was a successful scientist, going about his business until one day he gets shot. 

When your hero doesn't have a flaw, there's no inner journey for them to go on. If there's no inner journey, again, we don't connect with the characters or the story. The entire film becomes spectacle. 

Have you ever watched fireworks for a really long time?

I have. Fireworks are mesmerising for about 5-10 minutes. After that, it gets really boring, really quickly. You get the analogy. 

So that's bullet hole #2. 

What was the --

GOAL:

Not until Depp gets shot do we have a goal of some sort. But even then, what are the stakes of the goal?

The goal is to upload Depp's conscience into a computer. But what happens if they fail? Depp's gone for ever. Now if the film had spent the last 20 minutes making me LOVE Depp - by showing me all the amazing altruistic things he does, then maybe I would have cared if his conscience was uploaded or not. 

But that's not what happened. This film asked me to care about the death of a man I hardly knew, and had no reason to like. 

Now, had Depp's survival been essential OR something really bad would happen - say - there were 100 people trapped somewhere and only Depp could save them - then we have stakes - the lives of 100 other people. 

But as it stands there is no goal.

Even when Depp's conscience is loaded into the computer, the only goal is for the antagonists - the supposedly 'evil' lady who wants to kill Depp. 

Her goal is to kill him before he becomes an all powerful AI. 

So that's bullet hole #3 - The 'hero' doesn't really have a goal. 

STAKES:

I just mentioned this with regards to the goal, but it's worth a stand alone point being made. 

Stakes really drive a story. This is ultimately a story about the possible destruction of humankind, so, yes, in that sense the stakes are really high. But we never really get to see the threat. 

In the film Independence Day, we see the gigantic alien spaceship hovering over Washington DC, we can SEE the thing that threatens to wipe out mankind. 

Here, in Transcendence we never SEE the threat. 

We're told by way of clunky dialogue that Depp could wipe out all of mankind if he wanted to, but we never SEE him using his powers for evil. 

Not even when the finale rolls around do we see Depp get mad and use his powers for evil. Sure he uses them to defend himself, when the army are attacking, but I considered that reasonable, given the circumstances.

So that's bullet hole #4. Lack of clearly defined stakes.

CONFLICT:

This is another really big problem with this film. 

Drama is conflict. If you have two people in a room who agree with each other, you are guaranteed to have a really dull scene. 

Put two people in a room that disagree with each other and you will have a really interesting scene. Especially if you throw in a little thing we like to call --

SCENE OBJECTIVES.

A scene objective is SOMETHING that ONE of the characters WANTS to get from one of the other characters. 

When your scene doesn't have conflict, OR a scene objective - well, then you've got a film like Transcendence. 

To be fair, not every scene lacked for a scene objective or conflict, but I would say over 70% of the scenes did.

There really shouldn't be ONE scene in your film that lacks conflict or a scene objective. Not one. 

So that's bullet hole #5 (conflict) and #6 (scene objectives).

They are the core, fundamental problems with this film.

It is insane to think that 6 of the most important principles of film making were completely ignored in this film. 

I can excuse a film that gets made on sub $1million if it lacks a few of these rules, because, hey, it's likely the film makers are still learning the ropes.

But when you have Depp starring and a $100m budget, you really have no excuse to ignore these 6 principles of film making and story telling. 

So far I've been talking about the STORY.

Let's look at 

DIRECTION:

It was directed by Wally Pfister. This guy has 42 cinematography credits on films as big as Dark Knight Rises. This guy knows how to light a scene.

What he doesn't understand is how to tell a story.

There is a HUGE difference between being able to create a beautiful image and tell a story through images. 

One requires an intricate knowledge of light.

The other requires an intricate knowledge of story. 

Two very different things.

Let me break down the rookie mistakes Wally made.

There's a maxim in film directing and writing that goes - 'start late, finish early'.

What that means is cut the bullshit out. 

If the importance of a scene is a key piece if dialogue between two people, start as close as you can to that piece of dialogue, then finish that scene as soon as the dialogue has run. 

Wally seems to think the opposite.

Throughout the entire film he constantly had actors walking through doors, walking down hallways, driving in cars, walking down a street, sleeping, sitting.

There were over 50 instances where a character walked through a door, then down a hallway, then finally reached the person they wanted to talk to.

What do we learn about the character walking down a hallway, and through a door? Nothing. All that's interesting is the dialogue. So why not cut straight to that?

In the opening of the film we watch Will (Depp) and Evelyn getting dressed and having a nice conversation about nothing. 

Later Evelyn says she is going to turn PINN off, we then get three shots of her walking down hallways and through doorways before she is in the room where she can turn PINN off. Why not just cut straight there?

We have a montage of them setting up the lab where they're going to upload Will's conscience. Why do we need to see them building it? What do we learn? Why not cut straight into the lab already built.  -- Remember - START LATE FINISH EARLY.

OVER ACTING:

This is the next thing I want to bring up. This is always the fault of the director. This is the ONE thing that the director is supposed to be there to control. The actor's performance. 

Often, the character of Evelyn was over the top. Getting unnecessarily upset and yelling when it wasn't needed or justified. 

Now when you're directing it's hard to know how far to let an actor go. It's often not until you get into the edit and your scene has context that you can really gauge how you want the actor's performance to be.

How to solve this? Shoot multiple takes with DIFFERENT performances. Get three different levels of the same performance - 1) soft and subtle, 2) medium intensity. 3) intense. 

Then when you're in the edit you have choices. This is a directing tip 101.


LOGIC-TEST:

This film also had several logic bullet holes. 

The 'evil guys' can track Max down to a bar, but they can't track him down to the warehouse he was in.

If they can track him to a bar, they can track him to a warehouse. There are several other logic fails in this film. Too many to mention.

POINT OF VIEW:

There's also the issue of POV.

Who's film is this?

Most people would say it's Depp's film, 'cause he's the biggest actor. But that is wrong. If anything, this is Evelyn's film. We see and experience the film mostly through her eyes. 

If this film was told entirely through Depp's POV. Then we would have cared way more for Depp and his plight. 

REPETITION OF INFORMATION:

There was also repetition of information beats.

This is when we have just seen something happen in one scene, then in the next scene, one character tells another character something that just happened in the previous scene. 

That's bad directing and story telling. 

Never do this. Instead, cut straight to the moment AFTER the new character has learned of the information, and SHOW their reaction to this new information.

STATIC SHOTS:

This is a major problem for MOST rookie directors. They think in terms of Wide, Mid and Close Up. 

Look at films made by Paul Thomas Anderson - while his ability to tell a good story has dropped off over his most recent films - his ability to keep the camera moving has not. PTA is famous for his long one-shots. 

Think about it. How do we see life?

Do we see life in a series of Wides, Mids and Close ups? Or do we see it as one long continuous one-shot?

Think about that. 

OVER USE OF  B-ROLL.

B - Roll is the footage that the SECOND UNIT shoot. These mostly don't involve the principle actors. It will be shots of the crowd, shots of animals, streets, sunsets etc... 

Go through this film and count every time it uses B-Roll footage. I swear that at least 30% of this film is B-Roll footage. 

There's no golden number for what percentage your film should be B-Roll - but I'm going to create a magic number right now - less than 2% of your film should be B-Roll. 

And this...

... is where I will leave the analysis of this film. 

I hope, that as aspiring screenwriters and directors, you can learn something from the mistakes Transcendence made.  

MALPRACTICE - DRAMA

LOGLINE: A disgraced surgeon operating a black market clinic in Manila is called into action after he is enlisted by terrorists to assist in a plot to set off a bomb at a political convention filled with international dignitaries.

WRITER: Tyler Marceca

SCRIPT BIO: As far as I can tell, this is the next spec script from Tyler after he wrote the incredible screenplay "The Disciple Program". It's repped by WME T.J. Bernardy, Rich Cook &  Anonymous Content | Bard Dorros, Michael Sugar


STORY:

We open in Somalia where we meet Abukar and a young boy called Ismail. Abukar is a terrorist through and through, and today he has organised an incredible plot to break into and take over the American Embassy in Somali.

I won't get into details of the siege, other than to say it's epic and as with most of Tyler's writing, exceptional crafted. 

After this opening 'stinger' - we find ourselves in Manila where we meet the 'hero' of this film - one DARREN ATWELL (30s). 

Darren is addicted to pharmaceutical grade cocaine. He now lives in Manilla working in a back street kidney harvesting clinic. 

You see, back in the USA, Darren's addiction to cocaine led to him impaling one of his patients in the eyeball with a scalpel. 

He has been essentially disowned by his parents, and lives a terrible life here in Manilla, performing operations he doesn't want to perform, while numbing his pain with more cocaine. 

One day, while enjoying the high of the magic white powder, Darren is called into work as there is an emergency. 

Two rival gangs have been shooting each other and there are now several wounded men from both gangs waiting to be patched up in his clinic. 

Darren goes down to the clinic and does his best to help the gang members. It takes more than he bargained for, as the gang members are dead set on killing each other.

By this stage we're up to page 18 and you may have noticed as I did by this stage that we have no goal yet. 

We're just kind of rolling along.

We spend 7 pages watching the opening scene - the invasion of the US embassy, and now we're in Manilla - watching a washed up doctor snort coke and pull bullets out of gang members. 

Shortly after Darren has helped the gang members we shift POV and move over to Abukar and his right hand man - Fazul. They've just been shipped into Manilla in a container on a boat. One can only assume their presence in Manilla means something bad is gonna go down. 

Back at the clinic, Darren is paid a visit from a man with no nose, aptly named SPHINX. Sphinx works for the Hiasa gang and mysteriously just wanted to say thank you to Darren for fixing up his gang members. 

We soon learn that Manilla is hosting an international summit in Ermita, something to do with global security.

Darren is then picked up from his home by his driver Lau, who drives him to an opulent estate. Once they make it through the Fort Knox security measures, Darren meets the owner of the estate RAVALES (60s). 

Sphinx is at the mansion, and he knocks Darren out with a chloroformed cloth. Later Darren wakes up and finds himself wearing a suicide vest that is rigged to a patient's heart beat. If the patient's heart beat stops, the vest will explode. 

The patient is - Abukar - who instructs Darren that he wants him to perform domestic surgery on his face to make him look like someone who would be very unrecognisable. 

We're up to page 32 by this stage and we've reached our first goal. Darren needs to get out of this situation. 

I'll leave the story description there as this screenplay is worth the read and I don't want to get into spoilers.

INITIAL REACTION:

Firstly, let's talk quickly about Tyler's first script - The Disciple Program. TDP was an exceptional script. Tyler came out of nowhere, a complete unknown and sold that script for over half a million and signed with WME and Anonymous content. Two of the biggest reps in town.

Why was TDP so great. Aside from the writing being exceptional, the STORY was fantastic. 

There was a clearly defined hero who discovers his wife murdered by about page 15. He then goes on a very clearly defined journey uncovering the truth behind her murder.

From page 15 onwards in that script there was one clearly defined goal.

Now one of the major problems with Malpractice is that there is no MAJOR goal until page 31. And even then, that goal is not the MAIN goal in the story. 

Goals are so very important to story. Without goals, your story is ambling along without focus. We, as the audience can only handle an unfocused story for a short time. 

There's also another huge mistake that this screenplay makes. 

It shows us Darren's FLAW BEFORE we get to like him.

You really need to make me LIKE your hero BEFORE you show me his flaw. 

Think about how that works in real life. If you are friends with someone, then they do something to upset you, you are far more likely to forgive them, than if the first time you meet them they do something unkind to you. 

The same goes with characters in a film. Here, the first time we meet Darren we see him doing lines of coke by himself at home. He's obviously got an addiction and he's obviously got problems. 

We THEN see him saving the lives of the gang members. We like him for that. But we already dislike him for being a coke addict. 

Now had Tyler shown us Darren saving the lives of the gang member, THEN showed Darren doing coke, we would have been more sympathetic to him. 

That really is one of the major problems with this script. Empathy. At no stage do I actually feel for or like Darren. In fact, there's not one character here that I can identify with.

In Tyler's other script TDP - I loved the main character - why? Because Tyler built up huge amounts of empathy for him. 

CONCEPT:

I'm not really sure I even know what the concept here is. A good way to know if your concept is strong is to look at your logline.

Let's look at this logline:

A disgraced surgeon operating a black market clinic in Manila is called into action after he is enlisted by terrorists to assist in a plot to set off a bomb at a political convention filled with international dignitaries.

That logline is confusing. You really don't want a confusing logline for your story. 

'A black market surgeon is called into action' - what does that mean, 'called into action?'

It would be better to word it, 'forced to perform surgery on a terrorist'.

But then think about that. Your story is about a surgeon that's forced to perform surgery on a terrorist. 

Is that a really strong concept?

Compare this concept with the concept of The Disciple Program which was, 'A husband investigates the suspicious murder of his wife, uncovering a government conspiracy.'

That's a big concept. And it was well executed. 

Here we have a confusing concept that is well written, but the story is very slow.

CONCEPT RATING: 6/10

CONCEPT TIP: Think through your concept BEFORE you commit to writing. Once you've written 110 pages, it's much harder to then go back and change the core idea of your story. 

When your core idea is only 30 words in logline form - it's much easier to refine into something good.

FORM:

Tyler is probably one of the very best 'writers' I've read in the screenplay format. His use of words and his ability to construct a sentence is incredible. 

The Disciple Program was a sheer joy to read. 

While the writing here in Malpractice is very good, and the opening 20 pages are exceptional, the writing does slip off a little after that.

Tyler also uses bold for his sluglines which makes the read very distracting. 

Take a look at this script and see how he formats huge blocks of description into very easy to read and clean two line blocks. 

Ironically, one of Tylers strengths as a writer is his ability to focus on the minutiae, but sometimes that slows down the read. 

Focusing in on the fine detail of a scene really helps to bring that moment alive, but when you focus on the fine detail too much, the story will drag. 

FORM RATING: 7/10

FORM TIP: If you can get ahold of Tyler's first script - The Disciple Program, have a read. It is quite possibly the best formatted screenplay I have ever read.

STRUCTURE:

Now, in TDP there was a very clear and cleanly written structure.

Here, it feels like the structure is way off kilter. 

We open with a 7 page embassy invasion that really does nothing more than setup just how bad-ass the main bad guy is. 

That's wasted real estate. If you have to open on a hook opening that's nothing to do with your hero, try to keep it to less than 3 pages, then introduce your hero straight away. And remember - make us LIKE the hero, THEN show us their flaw. 

Darren's flaw is that he's addicted to cocaine - but there's a problem with this flaw -- it doesn't actually stop him from being a doctor.

Sure, you could argue that he's a doctor in Manila doing operations he doesn't really want to do, but the fact is, he's still a doctor performing operations. 

Let's think about what a flaw is.

A FLAW is a personality fault INSIDE your hero that stops them from achieving what they want or need to. 

It would be better if his addiction to cocaine stopped him from even being able to operate in this black market clinic. Then it would truly be a flaw.

As it stands, Darren's cocaine addiction is only a partial flaw. 

I would even go further and argue that cocaine addiction is not the underlying flaw. It's a manifestation of a flaw, but it's not the flaw itself.

The flaw, in Darren's case, is the personality trait that makes him deal with his issues by hiding behind cocaine. That's the real flaw.  But that real flaw isn't looked into by this story in its present form.

There's also too much negative empathy in this script for the hero. We later learn that because of Darren's addiction to cocaine he stabbed a patient in the eye with a scalpel. 

What Tyler is asking us to do, is to root for a really evil guy. He left a patent blind. That's fucked up. And it was his own fault. Now, had the patient had a seizure while he she was on the operating table, and Darren had stabbed her accidentally in the eye - that's one thing - that's an unfortunate circumstance - but here it is 100% Darren's fault he stabbed his patient in the eye. 

That's a hard hero to ask me to like.

STRUCTURE RATING: 5/10

STRUCTURE TIP:

Be sure you understand what a flaw is and how to use it with regards to structure. Read Christopher Vogler's The Writer's journey. Also, Save The Cat, and The Sequence Approach. These three books detail film structure really well. 

Second tip: Empathy. If you want me to like your hero - MAKE ME LIKE THEM. I don't automatically like them just because you wrote them down on the page. Show me your hero DOING things that will make me like them.

CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:

In The Disciple Program, Tyler created masterful characters all with sensational dialogue. 

Sadly, here, the characters are not half as well written. Darren's character is well defined, as is Abukar, but here we have a lot of peripheral characters clogging up the read.

In TDP - every single character was totally relevant to the storyline. Even what you would assume were smaller bit parts, were all essential to the plot. 

Dialogue was also amazing in TDP. Again, sadly, here the dialogue does not have half the zing and pop his previous script did. 

CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 6/10

CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP:

Take your time. Don't rush. Firstly, understand WHO your characters are. Understand their motivations. When you understand that, then think about the way each character would speak. Try to create differences between all your characters in the way they speak. If you can achieve this your script will stand out from the masses.

VOICE:

Tyler has a very unique voice. I talk about intelligence in screenwriting on this blog often. Tyler is by far one of the most intelligent writers I've read in years. 

The main things holding back the voice of this script are negative empathy for Darren, and the disjointedness of the script. It feels really unfocused. Even at the half way mark I was asking myself, what is it that Darren must do? What's the main goal of the story here?

VOICE RATING: 7/10

VOICE TIP:

Voice really is the sum of all the parts of your screenplay. 

But, not every part of screenwriting weighs in as heavily as all the other parts. 

For example - your FORM can be a 2/10 - but if your CONCEPT is 8/10 - no one will give a shit about your form. 

I would rank importance like this -- 

CONCEPT is king. If you've got a killer idea but your structure, dialogue and characters are off, odds are people will still want to read your script, and you might even sell it. 

Producers will buy a GREAT IDEA that's poorly written then bring in a writer who understands Structure, Characters, and Dialogue to refine that killer concept into a strong script.

STRUCTURE is next. 

If you have a great concept and good structure, producers will forgive weak characters and dialogue. 

CHARACTES and DIALOGUE are really one and the same. If you have poorly developed characters, odds are your dialogue will suck. And likewise on the flip - if your dialogue sucks, odds are it's because you have really badly developed characters. 

PRODUCTION:

No sir. I would not put money into this. 

I would put money into Tyler's first script. 

But this one has too many problems with it as I've mentioned.

As it stands it'd be a 30 - 50 million dollar piece - but there's just not enough of a hook to the concept to get people to the cinema. 

A surgeon is forced to operate on a terrorist. It's just not a big enough idea.

It's interesting to note that when this went out in February, they pitched it as a DRAMA. 

Which is actually what it is. At first I thought it was going to be a thriller, but really, it's more about the character study of Darren, than the exciting storyline. 

Here's a production tip for you.

Dramas don't make money.

Not anymore.

They did, even 10 years ago dramas could make money. But now, people want to go to the cinema for an EVENT. They want to see something that will wow them. 

There is one exception to this rule (as there always is) - the gray army. 

The demograph of people 50 years and older. They still love going to the cinema to see a drama. But unless you're aware of that fact, and you're writing to that demographic, a drama will almost certainly fail to turn a profit. 

If you are writing a drama and you really want your piece to stay a drama, I'd suggest writing it in a way that it can be made for less than $5mill. 

OVERALL SUMMARY:

Weak idea executed in a so so fashion. 

Which is a shame, as Tyler has proven to be one of the very best writers out there.

INVARIANT - THRILLER - SCI-FI

LOGLINE: Two students investigating the nature of time discover a way to send messages to the past and soon find themselves fighting desperately to change the future they’ve been shown.

WRITER: David Marmor

SCRIPT BIO: 2016 spec script repped by Peter Dodd of UTA.

STORY:

We're first introduced to Max (30s) by way of high contrast VHS footage from a home handy-cam from the 90's. Max is only a kid at the time, and he's intrigued by a science experiment his father and a colleague are working on. 

It involves a dark black crystal that doesn't make much sense in the opening scene, but we later learn if you shoot a laser into the crystal and control some other variable, the crystal can delay or speed up the laser coming out the other side.

That's the nexus of this story. Once you get your head around this slightly tenuous concept, once you buy into the idea that a crystal can not only delay information but speed up information then the story really is incredible. 

What do you mean by 'speed up information?' I hear you ask. Good question. The idea is that if you're about to do something, the crystal knows you're about to do it, and will do what you were about to do, BEFORE you do it. 

Confusing - right? But for the sake of the story, let's move on, and just 'ACCEPT' that this crystal CAN  transmit information through time. 

Max teams up with the lovely Louise, an undergrad student studying physics, and together they manage to harness this magical crystal's powers and create a device where they're able to send messages back in time.

They soon receive a message from themselves in the not too distant future, a few hours forward, telling them that they're being hunted by some government group. And sure enough, it's true, a government henchmen and his cronies are soon hunting them down.

The power of being able to send messages back in time has to be the ultimate weapon ever created, you could literally do anything with such power. Change the outcomes of wars, prevent assassinations, anything you can think of could be done. 

That kind of power is something every government and ruling body in the world wants.

Max and Louise are soon on the run from a government agency willing to kill them to get this device. Their only hope of survival are the message they're receiving from their future selves.

The question becomes, will they survive and if so, what will ultimately become of this incredible new device and the power it wields?

INITIAL REACTION:

I've talked about intelligence before on this blog. Today is a good example of when a script has obviously been well thought through. 

Compare this script with the script of Mobilized. 

This is a script that an intelligent person has really thought through. Mobilised read like a 9 year old was regurgitating 50 different films and mashing them together into one. The intelligence behind Mobilized was sub-par to be kind about it. 

This script is very considered. 

It's not bullet proof. This script's biggest asset - It's IDEA - is also one of its weakest points. 

It posits that the hero of the story can send messages through time via a mysterious dark crystal. That's what this story hinges on - if you can buy into that premise, then you're in for a great ride, but if you find that too hard to swallow, then the rest of the story falls apart.

I'm one of those that buys into the premise  While it's wholly unrealistic in real world terms that such a crystal exists, within the CONTEXT of the story written it's believable. 

And that's a very crucial thing - you can do ANYTHING you want in a story, so long as you do it in a convincing way. So long as you create rules and stick to them in the world you're creating, no matter how absurd in real life, the audience will go along with it, so long as you stay true to the rules of the world your create.

CONCEPT:

This is a killer concept - Scientist is able to send messages back in time. It's not entirely new - but when you get into the execution of this idea - it comes across as fresh. 

As the general public gets more and more film savvy, the bar for what will keep people entertained is slowly being raised. 

Film ideas that got people to go to the movies in the 80's are laughable these days. Watch any Chuck Norris or Dolph Lundgren movie and you'll see what I mean. 

CONCEPT RATING: 8/10

CONCEPT TIP: Inject intelligence into your writing. Take the script you're presently working on and ask yourself, are you challenging the audience? Or are you just trying to create something that will appease the masses? If you push the bar, if you really think through every beat and aspect of your story, it will only benefit you and your script. 

FORM:

Form wasn't perfect here, it was a little over written and there was over use of bold and italics.

But as I've said before, form is the first thing that producers and agents forgive so long as you are telling an intelligent, creative story. 

FORM RATING: 6/10

FORM TIP: Form is the easiest thing to learn when writing scripts. Spend some time researching the best way to format your screenplay. There's lots of good resources - How Not To Write A Screenplay - is one of the best.

The second best way is to READ a lot of screenplays that are out there. Look at the way they are formatted. Think about what formatting guides work for you as a reader and what distracts. 

STRUCTURE:

Structure here was okay. I don't think that Max actually had a FLAW. 

It's setup at the start that his parents die in a fire, and that's what's driving him to be able to send messages back in time. But that's not really a flaw.

It could be a flaw, if his obsession is causing problems in his life, but it's not really doing that. He is obsessed, but not in a detrimental way. 

When your hero doesn't have a flaw, structure begins to waver. As happens in this script. 

But there is one small up side to eschewing traditional structure, it means you can surprise your audience. 

The heroes journey structure was quite a new thing in the 90s. It is now very well known. So well known that it has become formula. The real skill in screenwriting these days is to KNOW the hero's journey and use it, but to do so in a way that isn't obvious. 

Sometimes a writer can luck it by writing a non-hero's journey film and it's really engaging BECAUSE we have no idea what will happen next. I think that's the case here in Invariant. 

The writer didn't follow a traditional structure, which would be death to the script in 99% of cases, but here the script works. 

Why?

Because of the first positive thing I mentioned about this script. It's INTELLIGENT and every beat is well thought through. 

We also have other elements driving the story. 

While there isn't a closed-end goal - the heroes do have a series of micro-goals -- being that their lives are in danger. Some powerful government agency is out to kill them and get this device. 

Their micro goals are to evade capture along the way. Now, this only works because of the setup of the film. We have a scenario where a future version of themselves is communicating with the present day version of themselves to help them survive. That's mind bending in a Matrix kind of way. 

Had this been a film about two convicts who escaped jail and go on the run, then it wouldn't have been so interesting. There's only so long we can watch a couple of the run from the law. 

STRUCTURE RATING: 6/10

STRUCTURE TIP: Surprise yourself. If, as you're writing you're able to write a beat in that you didn't expect to happen, then you will be sure to surprise your audience. 

Try the paint-yourself-in test. When you next have your hero in a tricking situation, rather than have them get out of that situation the easy way, go the hard way. Write them into a corner. 

Then this is the test - try to write them OUT of that corner - but in a way even you didn't see coming. It might take you a day or two to figure out how to get them out of the corner, but when you do, you will have a moment in your screenplay your audience didn't see coming. It will also add to the intelligence of your script.

CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE:

Max and Louise are well rounded and well created. They're not perfect, but as they stand I'd give them 8/10's each. All the other characters aren't so well rounded, which would normally be a problem, but here, in this script, because we don't know so much about the bad people chasing them, that only adds to their enigma. 

Dialogue isn't anything to write home about. And in fact, in this very strong script I'd say that dialogue is the weakest element. 

There's not much difference between the way Max and Louise talk. If you took away the character names you couldn't tell who was who by the WAY they speak. 

CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE RATING: 7/10

CHARACTERS & DIALOGUE TIP: Dialogue is a really powerful way of creating vibrant characters. When your dialogue pops, your characters will pop. 

Why is that?

Because when you put time and effort into understanding HOW a character speaks and WHY they speak that way - then you're really starting to understand WHO your characters are. 

When you know who your characters are, you're better able to make character based decisions. Meaning - you make decisions in your script that are TRUE to the nature of your characters. 

VOICE: 

Voice is pretty good here. If the writing was trimmed back a little and the formatting mistakes were cleaned up, if the dialogue were tweaked and a decent flaw added to Max then the voice in this script could be exceptional. 

VOICE RATING: 7/10

VOICE TIP: Perfecting each of the aspects of your script will bolster and improve your voice. 

PRODUCTION:

If this script were cleaned up as I have mentioned, then yes, I'd definitely put money into this. But I'd insist that it be kept to a 10 mill budget. 

Sci-fi is hard to make money on. There are exceptions to this rule - Matrix, Star Wars etc - but when you have something like this script - which is essentially an everyday thriller set in the ordinary world with ONE sci-fi element (send messages back in time) - then these kind of films are hard to get much more of a return than 50 million.

SUMMARY:

Intelligent concept very well executed.

OVERALL RATING: 8/10