Webshow - "Asking someone to read your script"

Every writer needs feedback - but a lot of those writers could use lessons in how to politely ask someone to read their script. This week, I offer some dos and don'ts for imposing on people to look over your work.

The Black List 3.0 gets two more writers signed!

Looks like the signing of Justin Kremer was just the beginning. Deadline is reporting that two more writers have gotten representation after having put their scripts on the Black List 3.0's script hosting site.

Bob Ingraham has signed with Benderspink on the strength of his submission POSSUM, with a logline that reads, "When a vulnerable, autistic man is used thieves to commit a heist, it turns out he has remarkably valuable skills."  The Black List reader raved about it, saying, "POSSUM is a clever and thrilling heist film with interesting characters. With the great action and emotional relationships, it could find success across all four quadrants if ever produced."

The script was a Semifinalist in Nicholl and Chesterfield competitions, and a Project Greenlight Top 100 script.  Deadline says the script is being prepped to go out under a new title.

Also, Richard Cordiner has signed with Verve and Kaplan/Perrone after they responded positively to his script THE SHARK IS STILL WORKING.  The script is a behind-the-scenes look at the filming of Jaws, with a logline that reads, "When his big break finally arrives, an idealistic young movie director, Steve Spielberg, comes up against the one star he cannot control: a recalcitrant 25-foot model shark."

I have to admit, this one tickles me a bit because I've been saying for years that there's a great movie to be made about the turmoil that was Jaws's production.  Oh well, perhaps I'll have to write about the odyessy that was the making of Jaws: The Revenge instead.

Congrats to both gentlemen!  Let's hope this is the first of many more signings.

Tuesday Talkback - Worst retcon?

I saw the pilot for The Carrie Diaries a while back and was somewhat surprised to discover that I found it rather cute and charming.  Given that I can't take more than 30 seconds of Sex & The City without wanting to vomit at the terrible acting and the worse puns.  (Full disclosure: thanks to my wife being a fan, I've seen about six full episodes... and one of those I've ended up seeing at least three times.  If your curious, it's the one with SJP and her current boyfriend having their cabin weekend ruined by Detective Logan from Law & Order.)

Anyway, I read a few reviews of the show today and one of them led me to this article complaining that Carrie's backstory in The Carrie Diaries is incompatible with what audiences learned of her history on Sex & the City.  And now an entire generation of Manolo Blahnik-wearing fans get to learn a term familiar to anyone who's read comics for any decent length of time: retcon.

"Retcon" is short for "retroactive continuity."  Basically, it refers to when some element of backstory is reestablished after the fact.  Over the years, it's mostly been used to call out examples when the new elements clash with older elements (as in the above example), but it can also refer to instances where the new detail fits in perfectly and brings new depth to the story.  Darth Vader being revealed as Luke's father is an example of this.  When Vader was introduced, it wasn't set in stone that he was going to turn out to be Anakin Skywalker, so the decision to go in that direction in Empire Strikes Back is a clear retcon.

This sort of thing happens a lot in comics, where new creators love to come in and say "Everything you know is a lie!"  Sometimes they work, but often they just make stories more confusing.  I don't know WHY comic creators like meddling with characters origins.  All I know is that whoever gave Jeph Loeb (in 2000's "Return to Krypton") and later Mark Waid (in "Superman: Birthright") permission to muck around with what had been a consistent Superman origin since 1986 deserves a kick in the balls.  That really ruined several years of stories as later writers tried to make sense of the mess they left.

I'm sure everyone reading this has seen some kind of retcon, so what are your least favorite examples?  TV is full of minor examples like the Cunninghams having an older son who only existed for a few episodes on Happy Days, or Jerry Seinfeld referring to his sister on Seinfeld before later episodes reaffirmed he was an only child.

But the big ones can really put you off of a show.  The example that leaps immediately to mind for me is from the TV show Brothers & Sisters.  I had checked out the show early in its run due to the involvement of Greg Berlanti, who among many other great shows, created Everwood, one of my all-time favorite series.  The first few eps didn't grab me, but I was motivated to return about 2/3 of the way through the first season when they added Everwood's Emily VanCamp to the cast.

VanCamp was introduced as Rebecca, who soon discovered she was the illegitimate daughter of the Walker family's deceased patriarch.  This led to a lot of conflict with the Walker siblings, but Rebecca soon was welcomed into the family... for about a season.  Towards the end of the second season, the writers reversed course and revealed that - SURPRISE - Rebecca was never a Walker at all.  So a full year's worth of stories about the family coming to terms with her presence and Rebecca dealing with gaining such a large family suddenly seemed to be rendered null and void.

(Supposedly this change was made so they could capitalize on the chemistry between VanCamp and David Annable, whose relationship on the show was that of siblings until the Rebecca retcon removed any hint of incest.)

At that point, I felt like they'd pushed an unneccesary reset button on Rebecca, and as she was the character who had gotten me into the show, I found myself with little incentive to stick around much past the start of the following season.  It's a shame because the show was generally well-acted and the writing was usually pretty solid, but that twist broke a lot of my investment in the characters.

Actually, that was the real shame.  I wanted to keep enjoying the show and there was a lot there that still was working (evidenced by the fact it ran a further three seasons).  The Rebecca aspect was just one aspect of a very large show, after all.  Thing is, there's a risk that comes with taking chances and sometimes your audience isn't going to be able to follow you after certain choices.  A viewer less invested in Rebecca's story might have rolled with the punches better.  For me, it had been one of my favorite aspects of the series, so the change-up was a bitter pill to swallow.

So do you have any similar examples?  What retcons have earned your ire?

"Are readers biased against scripts from smaller reps?"

Cameron writes:

Hello bitter script reader... First off, I enjoy the blog--and I really like the youtube videos as well. 

Second I was hoping you could shed some light on something I've been thinking about. I'm currently fortunate enough to finally break through that first tough barrier of getting representation. There are several agencies/management companies I'm currently considering. I know you have a long history of reading screenplays for various places--and probably know a ton of other readers as well. 

I was curious if there was any bias you've ever seen amongst readers when you get sent scripts--lets say from CAA vs. a boutique agency or Circle of Confusion vs. small independent manager. 

Do companies/readers take "bigger" agency/management submissions more seriously than a smaller ones? I would love to think that the writing will simply speak for itself, but from what you seen is this true?

The first time I read this, my gut reaction was "No, not at all.  I don't think that has ANY bearing on the read."  But then I thought about it a little more and realized the following issues MIGHT come into play.

- Scripts from bigger agencies probably will be read faster.  This has less to do with reader bias and more often to do with the fact that the exec who needs the coverage will assign a higher priority to a script that comes in from a more reputable source.  On that count, all you're really losing is time, though.

- If a submission comes in from one of the bigger agencies and it REALLY sucks, odds are we might be subconsciously harder on it.  Probably every reader has finished a particularly bad script and thought "CAA reps this guy?!  How the hell did that happen?"  But again, that's a problem for the bigger repped writer, not necessarily you.

- The one instance where having a lower-level manager might hurt you is if your rep has shoveled a LOT of shit to my company lately.  I'm not talking about the "Eh, it's not for me" kind of PASS, nor the "Generic on every level" PASS.  I'm talking about the "I don't believe anyone in your office read a fucking word of this script because this is so bad  you'd be embarrassed for people to find it in your trash!"  (And yes, these guys exist.)  That's when you really start off on the wrong foot with me and then everything you do wrong in the script will go into my master thesis of why this particular rep should not get his calls returned.

But again, not that for this to be a problem, you have to have written a bad script.  Down on my level, there aren't many ways for a lower-prestige rep to screw you over.  Where the lesser rep might present a problem is in getting someone to accept their submission, but that's mostly a decision made above my level.

The ethics of script sharing

Last month, the new Black List was released and I was rather disgusted to see some of the usual reactions.  No, I'm not talking about people bitching that every script on that List sucked.  My ire was largely raised by the fact that within hours, people had compiled all of the scripts together in a zip file and posted the link for public download.

You could find it on Reddit, on Twitter, and even on a tracking board that charges its users for access to links like that.  In fact, the people behind that tracking board didn't just post the link, but were actively working to compile an archive of those scripts on their own.  That sort of thing doesn't sit well with me for a lot of reasons and - perhaps more importantly - it was clear it was not a welcome development in the eyes of several people ON the list.

This sparked a pretty interesting thread on Done Deal Pro.  (Notably DDP's moderators made it clear in no uncertain terms that posting a link to the scripts would not be tolerated, so kudos to them there.)  Several posters didn't quite understand what the big deal was and there was a (polite, it should be noted) request for people like myself to discuss our side of it.

One user, Anagram, gave a fairly succinct explanation of where the lines are drawn when it comes to the ethics of script-sharing.  I posted that I pretty much agreed with that, but there was a request for a more complete answer on my part.  Since some people here might find this interesting I decided to re-post it:

 - Any public review of a script without first obtaining permission of the writer - WRONG, for a whole host of reasons.

- Any public dissemination of a screenplay you didn't write, including but not limited to in-development projects and contest winners - WRONG.

You'll find zero negotiation from me on those points. Screwing over contest winners like Nicholl Finalists is something I find especially repugnant. I don't care how much anyone wants to read them, those winners deserve the chance to control who reads their script and know who in the industry is requesting their script. When websites and web posters make these scripts widely available, it deprives the winner of the joy of seeing everyone coming to him, wanting to look at their work.

Let's also make it clear that "public dissemination" means giving access to the script to people who you might not personally know. So if you're dropping scripts in a Sendspace folder that anyone can get to, that counts. Scriptshadow's email where he sends links to a "limited" list of a few thousand people? That counts.

Let's talk about the grey area people seem to want to find here...

 I don't think there's anything wrong with trading a script between friends, and it's understood between my friends that there are some scripts we can't share at all, and other scripts that if I pass it to them, they CANNOT pass it to anyone else. At the end of the day, that works because I'm accountable to them and they're accountable to me.

This is one reason why no one cares about assistants swapping scripts - because they're not going to fuck each other over. If Harvey's assistant gives a friend the new Tarantino script, that friend isn't going to jeopardize his buddy's job (and the friendship) by writing a review of it and emailing it to everyone in his contact list. In Assistant Land, there are consequences to that kind of thing and it basically keeps everyone in line. In Assistant Land, if you let the tentpole slip and the leak is traced back to you - it costs you your job.

But a writing hobbyist in, say, Idaho doesn't have that incentive. If they get JUSTICE LEAGUE or AVENGERS 2, what consequences keep them in line? Sure, there was that $15 million lawsuit over DEADPOOL, but the mere fact we're having this discussion means that clearly didn't scare anyone too much.

I only give scripts to people I know personally. And I have NEVER traded a script for a major film produced the companies I've worked for. I've been lucky enough to work for companies that have dealt in franchise films and nobody wants the grief that comes if those scripts get out.

I interviewed Scott Frazier recently, and damned if I didn't get people emailing me asking me to send them copies of his scripts. I was surprised at their boldness, but that's also the perfect example of someone I'd never give a script to. I don't those people. I don't know what they'll do with the script, where they'll post it. And they have no loyalty to me, so there's no real incentive for them NOT to screw me over.

Or here's an even better example.  Back when Scriptshadow was hyping up The Disciple Program for two solid weeks before his review, he didn't just slip it to a few trusted industry contacts.  He actually emailed it out to his entire newsletter three days before the script was reviewed.  Given the timetable that was later revealed this also would have been AFTER the script was in the hands of several agents and managers who were looking to sign the writer.

Blasting such a hot spec out to a newsletter of hundreds or thousands of people indiscriminately could have been a colossally stupid move.  At the time that newsletter was sent, a lot of people were trying to get their hands on the script and they all had to go through Carson.  Better still, it created a ticking clock where some agents and potential buyers were worried that their rivals had access that they didn't.  Thus, a fire was lit under them to react quickly if they wanted it.  Hesitation or inability to get the script could have meant missing out on a hot property.

This is the mentality you want your buyers to have to deal with.  It puts more power in your hands and it creates a bidding war.

Within an hour of the newsletter going out, three readers of MY blog had forwarded it onto me.  The emails were mostly variations of "Hey, this is the hottest spec in town and just in case you want it I figured I'd send it to you."  I'd never heard from any of these people before, and I'm pretty sure I haven't corresponded with them since.  They don't know me (outside of my blog).  They don't know who I work for.  They don't know what I'd do with the script or who I'd send it to.

But they knew this was a hot spec.  And it made them feel cool to show someone that they had it.  They had nothing invested in the writer's success or failure.  I doubt they even knew the writer.  They just were feeling the rush of having something they believed was desirable and wanted to show people that they were on the inside.

Maybe you don't see how dangerous that is, but when it's a script you're attached to, I guarantee you'll think differently.

Webshow: Being "good enough" as a screenwriter

Most aspiring writers don't appreciate how hard it is to be "good enough" to break in to the entertainment industry. And then there are the writers who think "good enough" means being just barely better than the latest bad movie released by Hollywood. In this week's ep of the webshow, I explain why the writers who make it are never satisfied with just being better than the worst of their peers.

DJANGO UNCHAINED, the value of ultimate evil and the need for revenge fantasies

Often writers will be advised to create complex, multifaceted characters. "The villain is the hero of his own story," they are told. Often, it's considered undesirable to have an antagonist who's just evil for evil's sake. And that's true. I've read many a script where I was put off because the bad guy was just one-dimensionally evil.

But one genre where you can get away with that sort of writing is revenge fantasy. These are the sorts of stories that exist to give a cathartic release to the audience by allowing them retribution against a horrible evil.

I've said before that the lone virtue of Nazis is that they have provided storytellers with the ultimate unsympathetic villain. You need to create an antagonist that the audience is in no way going to feel bad for, no matter how brutally they are punished? Make him a Nazi. You need your hero to kill 50 guys to prove his badassery, but are worried about the moral quandary of the good guy indiscriminately murdering people left and right? Make them Nazis.

No one will ever complain about how horribly a film depicts Nazis. Their entire existence is a horrible depiction. If a film showed a Nazi party member raping an altar boy, killing a horse, beating a woman and torturing a kitten, is anyone going to step up and say that besmirches the good name of Nazis everywhere?

Of course not.

Now try that with a Catholic Priest.

The fact that Hitler is the go-to comparison in an argument when someone wants to demonize their opponent is pretty much proof that it's impossible to be unfair when painting Nazis as evil. There are only a handful of groups that share that sort of reputation. Having used Nazis in Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino turned to another decidedly un-protected class in Django Unchained - viscous slave owners.

It's interesting that Tarantino gets attacked for the violence in his films, but more often than not, the people who die horribly in his films totally deserve what's coming to him. Again and again we're shown the worst of humanity - slave owners who sell human beings as chattle. They beat them, they brand them, they whip them. In one uncomfortable scene, Kerry Washington's character is debased by being thrown naked in a hot box, then later is nearly stripped for the amusement of her owner, who takes particular glee in showing off the whip marks on her back.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays one of the more prominent slave owners in the film and his performance is a major highlight.  We're used to seeing him play mostly intense and serious characters, so it's incredibly enteraining to see him taking such glee in playing such a loathsome character.

It's interesting how Tarantino handles the violence.  All of the "evil" violence is handled in a serious, unsettling way.  There's no tongue-in-cheek when it comes to the slave whippings and brandings.  But when the victimizers get what's coming to them, it's classic over-the-top violence.  This isn't Unforgiven.  This is no meditation on the morality of violence.  It's evil people getting what's coming to them.

I'd posit that we need these revenge fantasies.  We want to see some kind of horrible retribution visited on the monsters who murdered six. Million. Jews. in the Holocaust.  We need to see the people who sold and whipped other human beings get a taste of their own medicine.  Do they deserve to die?  (skip to :20. Stupid YouTube won't let me set it to embed there directly.)

 
That clip is from A Time to Kill.  It's a fantastic film with a somewhat troubling morality behind it.  Two southern rednecks beat and brutally rape a young black girl.  Though the men are arrested, there's an excellent chance that they will go free.  Unable to cope with that, the girl's father, played by Samuel L. Jackson, guns them down in the courthouse.  The rest of the film focuses on the prosecution of Jackson's character for capital murder.

It seems insane that the grieving father could be punished for avenging his daughter while the men who beat her might have been able to walk around as free men.  The film asks us to sympathize with vigilante justice.  Nay, it demands we do so.

In the real world, as much as we might sympathize with Jackson's plight, those men never faced their day in court.  They never were found guilty and so the presumption of innocence is something they're legally entitled to.  In the real world, the hero of our movie is a premeditated murderer.  Does passion excuse that?  Think of the West Memphis Three - three innocent men who lost nearly twenty years of their lives to wrongful murder convictions where child murders stirred up passions as intense as those in A Time to Kill.

But that's the real world.  Why don't we shed a tear for the bastards in A Time to Kill?  Because in "movie world," we are omniscient.  We KNOW they did it.  We SAW them do it and if it was in our power, we'd strangle them with our bare hand.  As viewers we are witness, judge, jury and executioner.

That is the power of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained.  Those horrible evils are beyond our capacity to punish.  But through the movies, we can take back a little control, and for a few hours, we can live in a world where evil people will not escape justice.  Tarantino taps into our primal need for this and provides us with movies that make us feel.

Strive for this in your writing.  Seek powerful scenes and moments that speak to what an audience needs to see, what they need to believe in.  Django Unchained doesn't fetishize violence for it's own sake, or for simple shock value.  There is a clear purpose to Tarantino's methods.