"They stole my idea!"

It feels like at least once a month there's a story about a production company or a studio behind a major hit film being sued by someone claiming "They stole my idea!"  Case in point, just last week, a lawsuit against the makers of Avatar was thrown out.

The thing is that truly unique ideas are rare, and even then it's possible for multiple people to come up with the same "totally original" premise, especially if the idea is a reaction to something floating out in the ether.

Case in point, on June 21, I sent the following tweet: "Trying to get a meeting on the sequel, JOHN WILKES BOOTH: VAMPIRE-HUNTER HUNTER."*

Almost three months later, on September 17, comedian Patton Oswalt sent this tweet.

So did he rip me off?  Of course not.  We both were riffing on the same idea and we independently arrived at the same basic punchline.

I truly believe that this is what happens in 90% of the "they stole my idea!"cases.  So don't take all these plagiarism suits as any kind of evidence that Hollywood is determined to steal your ideas.

*Yes, I'm aware that it would have been more grammatically correct to say "VAMPIRE HUNTER-HUNTER."  I realized that almost immediately after sending the tweet, but got so many RTs immediately that I opted to just let it ride.

The script that made me want to recommend psychiatric help for the writer

Lence asks:

What's the best script you've ever read? 

I'm truly at a loss for this one.  It's one of those cases where I read so much that a lot of it tends to bleed together.  I don't know if you can really put a "best script ever" label on anything because there are a lot of different ways to write a GREAT script. Indeed, I've read a lot of scripts that I really liked, many that I was passionate about for different reasons - and yet, asked to single out one... I just can't.

And have you ever read a script so bad it almost made you angry to read? 

Frequently.  I recall one instance where the development VP I was reading for at the time kicked a script down to me and it was one of the most generic pieces of violent drek I'd seen in a while.  The writing style was trying WAY too hard to be cool.  (I'm pretty sure there was a lot of Shane Black-type "talking to the reader.")  It was very low-brow and B-movie like.  In fact, you could have almost convinced me it came in from a non-pro query.  I struggled to find anything original or inspiring about the script.  On top of that, most of the characters didn't even have proper names.

I hated it, and told the VP so.  Turns out, she'd read ten pages and hated it so much she kicked it down to me so she wouldn't have to read it.  After I explained my reaction to the script, she apparently called up the exec who sent it to her and in so many words said, "Dude! What the fuck?!"

The exec said that this script was about to go into production and that the writers were going to be "huge!"  VP and I roared with disbelief over that one.  But in the end, the writers had the last laugh as they've gone on to work steadily, working on at least one franchise.

In our defense, I know of some A-listers who weren't especially impressed with their writing either and had some of the same issues we did.

And then there was one of the most vile, misogynistic pieces of violent writing I had ever read.  It was perverted, disgusting and disturbing to such a level that the only reason I ended up with the script was that the (female) reader who had to cover the first submission of this script refused to read it again due to being the product of a sick mind.

She was right. I googled the writer.  He was a studio exec.

As much as that deserved a rimshot THAT WAS NOT A JOKE!

The coverage that script provoked was some of the most unvarnished coverage I ever had submitted to these bosses.  Some of my employers enjoy it when I take a more Simon Cowell-like approach to shredding the truly terrible scripts, others have preferred a more measured, even take on it.  The bosses for this submission were among the more buttoned-up, but in my write-up, I only barely restrained myself from suggesting psychiatric help for the submitter.

A few months later, the script was resubmitted.  I had to read it again.  The fucker barely had changed anything - and he certainly hadn't toned down the misogyny or the violence.  Or the misogynistic violence.  I made sure when I wrote the synopsis that I included every last instance of such.

I'll put it this way.  He made I Spit on Your Grave look like Mary Poppins.  So I tore him a new one, then emailed my boss's assistant and said, "Look, this concept is NEVER ever going to get a Consider from anyone.  If we take it again, we're wasting our time and the company's money."  As I understand it, the message was conveyed.  In spades.

A few weeks later, the writer attempted to submit again.  He was unsuccessful.

I've probably written other scripts that were just as bad or worse, but few made me as violently angry at the writer as that.  Rarely have I ever felt I was looking into the mind of such a sick individual.

Reader questions - rewrite etiquette and script reading suggestions

Lamtin asks:

Another: For newer writers, do you think they should do as many steps as a producer asks of them (for free, after the first contracted steps are done)? I ask this because starting out I always felt guilty that if further work was required outside the scope of the contract, it was because my last draft hadn't aced it. Any views?

This is one where I'd defer to some of the pro-writers out there.  I know it happens, I know it's not supposed to happen.  I know there are pros lurking out there - anyone feel like weighing in, even anonymously?

Ty asks:

I like to show my undergrad students scripts and writers that vary in voice and style: the lean and blunt Walter Hill and the loquacious Aaron Sorkin, the chattiness of Shane Black's action blocks and the focus of the Nolan brothers, and so on. 

Can you recommend scripts/writers in non-action genres that demonstrate the flexibility in screenwriting style? 

Thanks. This blog is on my recommended reading list for the class. 

Those poor students.  Apologies to all.

Wait, "recommended reading?" Why not "required?"  The Dean shall hear of this!

Okay this is a good question.  I'm gonna stick to commercially available scripts so as to not put an accredited educator in the position of recommending illicit downloading.

F. Scott Frazier is a huge fan of Tony Gilroy's Michael Clayton and I'd certainly back that up.

It might be interesting to compare and contrast Judd Apatow's Knocked Up with Diablo Cody's Juno.  Apatow is lean on description and dialogue-heavy, while my recollection is despite Cody's stylized dialogue, her descriptions are rather short and utilitarian.

In checking out the selection at the bookstore, I realized that Good Will Hunting and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind were both available.  I've never read either, but there's gotta be a lot to be learned from both of those, especially the non-liner way in which Eternal Sunshine unfolds.

"Dig" - a short film by Joshua Caldwell

One of the fine people I've met in my years of running this blog is Joshua Caldwell, a promising filmmaker who works for CSI producer Anthony Zuiker's Dare to Pass as Director of Digital Media.

In 2006, while at Fordham University, Josh won the MTV Movie Award for Best Film on Campus for his short "The Beautiful Lie." He talks a little bit about that in this excellent posting from Go Into The Story. I encourage everyone to check that out to learn a little more about Josh.

In his position at Dare to Pass he co-produced the online digital feature Cybergeddon. He also directed, produced, and co-write the Cybergeddon Zips, short films that branch off from the feature and expand the storyline.

Another of his duties is producing the BlackBoxTV series "Anthony E. Zuiker Presents" for the BlackBoxTV YouTube Channel. These include The Reawakening, directed by two-time Academy Award winner Rob Legato, and Execution Style, directed by Lexi Alexander.

But today I want to present Dig, Josh's most recent short film. Dig was winner of the Silver Screen Award (Short Film Competition) - Nevada Film Festival.



Dig from Joshua Caldwell on Vimeo.

Also, it was an Official Selection in the following:
2011 LA Shorts Fest 2011 Carmel Art & Film Festival
2011 NewFilmmakersLA (Fall)
2012 Durango Independent Film Festival
2012 Beverly Hills Film Festival
2012 Los Angeles Jewish Film Festival
2012 Dances with Films
2012 HollyShorts Film Festival
2012 Action on Film International Film Festival

You can find Josh's blog here.

Follow Josh Caldwell on Twitter here.

Reader questions - Overdone concepts and integrity in "true stories"

Lamtim had a few good questions. I'll tackle the first bunch.

How about a blog about how you'd approach tackling a really hoary old story? If you were well-paid by a company (and let's assume you need the gig) to adapt or develop material that felt played-out?

I've thought about doing something like this, but the problem is that any time I've started, I've fallen so in love with the idea that I feel like I'd rather develop it in private. And when I haven't fallen in love with the concept, I find that I don't have much enthusiasm for spending a blog post or several going through the motions.

On a related note, it'd be great to see a list from you on the top ten overdone stories you see in specs. Which ideas land on the readers' desks over and over again? 

I feel like I've touched on this before. Overdone cliches tend to bug me more than overdone stories, though I have really hit my limit on the following:

1) Morally-conflicted hitman has to pull one last job.

2) Teenage guys are determined to lose their virginity before Prom/Homecoming/Graduation only to get into a lot of gross, bodily humor-driven conflict. (An inventive way to flip this that I really can't recall seeing? Make the protagonists teenage girls!)

3) Dramas where the long suffering lead character is a martyr dealing with an aged parent with Alzheimer's/Cancer while dealing with their own terminal illness/evil spouse/hellion of a spawn.

4) Slasher scripts that don't bring anything new to the table.

5) Scripts where an uber-straight male is forced to "act gay." The motivation is always forced and implausible. This is the updated version of "I have to pretend to be married so I can get that big promotion" and it's not any more inventive here.

6) Plotless stories where a bunch of guys in their early 20s sit around talking about their lives, drinking, and getting laid by insanely hot but insanely stupid women.

Next question. "Based on a true story." How faithful to actual events/people do you think a movie carrying this description needs to be... or is it nothing but a marketing hook? 

Honestly, I struggle with this one. If we're talking about an incredibly well-known event, then I think the filmmaker has a responsibility not to take too many liberties. If I was working on something like this, I'd never forget that this film could be how an entire generation remembers the events depicted therein. I'd want to be able to look at the finished project and feel like I maintained my integrity in telling that story.

With something like The Social Network, I get the sense that most of the events happen in a way close to the truth, though they take some liberties with regard to Mark Zuckerberg. There's no mention made of the woman he was seeing at the time, who eventually became his wife. There's also a sense that Jesse Eisenberg plays him with a demeanor rather unlike how he is in real life.

The thing is, The Social Network is a great movie, so I'm more willing to overlook some of the changes made for the sake of drama. On the other hand, if Apollo 13 had been less faithful, my appreciation of it would probably be diminished.

And yet, it doesn't really bother me at all that A Beautiful Mind took so many apparent liberties with regard to its protagonist. JFK is another film that brings up this conflict. Compelling as a film, but historically dubious.

Better example - I loved The Hoax (see it if you haven't) and when I bought the book detailing the true story, I discovered that I think there's a limit to what the audience will accept. Mess with a history they know, and they'll approach the whole thing with skepticism. Give them an "untold" story, and you might have more leeway in how loose you can play with the truth.

Tuesday Talkback - Most anticipated shows of the new fall season

As the fall TV season gets underway, I'm curious - what new shows are you most looking forward to and why.

As we've discussed before, my favorite new drama of the fall is the fantastic Last Resort.  Nashville also has a lot of promise.  I was surprised by how much I liked the pilot, as after seeing the trailer, I had dismissed it as little more than "Country Strong: The Series."

The comedies seem to be a weaker crop, at least based on the pilots, though I really liked The Mindy Project and Go On seems to hold some promise.

What appeals to you?

I'm tapped out - hit me with your questions

So I took off a few days to refresh myself and work on other projects, only to find that when I return to the blog, I really have nothing to say.

I hate that.

So it seems like time to open the floor to questions.  Hopefully that'll keep me busy for the next few weeks/months.

First ten pages - High concept comedy

So what do you do when you’re writing a High Concept Comedy script that requires you to lay a little pipe before getting to the hook? Let’s say you’ve got a brilliant hook like “teenager goes back in time and has to get his parents to fall in love” but there’s just no way you’re going to be able to set that up in ten pages. How do you get fickle readers to keep reading?

Remember: Tone. Genre. Craft.

Look at Back to the Future. Remember the first image in that film? It’s a ticking clock. From the first line of the screenplay, we’re aware of time as an element. Even before Marty enters Dock’s workshop, the camera has panned across the room. It passes a few expository newspapers, all while showing off Doc Brown’s Rube Goldberg-like device for getting canned dog food. That tells us something about Doc. Then Marty enters and through his phone conversation with Doc, we get a decent sense of their dynamic. This is important because they don’t really interact again until about 15 minutes into the film, when Doc makes his first on-screen appearance.

There are plenty of things to learn from Back to the Future, but with a film like this, the important thing is to set up the dominos that will eventually be knocked down. For this film in particular, that includes details like Principal Strickland mentioning Marty’s father was a “slacker.” He also says, “No McFly has ever amounted to anything in the history of Hill Valley.” To that, Marty says “Well history is gonna change.”(THEME ALERT.)

Every subsequent scene contains details that are important. Marty’s band fails a tryout, and then he wavers about sending his demo in. Even with his girlfriend’s encouragement, he’s scared to take a chance. (CHARACTER TRAIT ALERT.)  As the two kiss in front of the Clock Tower, a woman comes over to solicit donations for the Clock Tower, which was struck by lightning 30 years ago (EXPOSITION ALERT.) Marty goes home to find his father being bullied by Biff…. (IMPORTANT SUBPLOT ALERT) and amid other details, his mother tells the story of how she and Marty’s dad first fell in love. (PAY ATTENTION – IMPORTANT BACKSTORY.)

There’s a lot of exposition there, but there are just enough hints of the script’s themes that most readers would probably have faith that this is all leading somewhere. We’ve got a teenager, a crazy inventor, lots of references to time and history, and Marty’s entire world established in about ten minutes, give or take. If you were to show those pages to someone with no prior knowledge of the film, it wouldn’t be a surprise if most of them guessed that Marty would somehow end up back in time and witness a few of the past events he’s been told about.

Most of the time in high concept comedy, your lead character HAS to jump off the page in the first few scenes. The character – not the plot – is really what carries the film. The hook is just a means to explore that character.

Liar Liar – a lawyer who lies as easily as most people breathe is forced to tell the truth for an entire day.

Bruce Almighty – An egotistical news reporter is given all of God’s powers and learns ultimate power isn’t as easy as it seems.

Groundhog Day – A jaded and selfish weatherman is trapped in a loop that forces him to live out the same day over and over again.

If you change the defining traits of those lead characters, the entire theme and story changes, even if the situation they are trapped in remains the same.

 So in high concept comedy, I’d say you can never forget this rule: Define your characters early and often

First ten pages - Horror

As I’ve said before, your first ten pages are critical. Agents, managers, readers and producers will often use the first ten pages to gauge how strong you are as a writer. If the first ten pages suck, you probably suck. Ten pages is more than enough space to convey tone, genre, themes and give the characters a good introduction.

I read a lot of bad horror scripts that start off the same – a disposable kill of a barely related supporting character. This makes a little bit of sense. In a horror film, you should establish the threat that’s out there. We need to know there’s a “shark in the water,” as it were.

But there’s more to a good horror opening than just killing a big-breasted babe in her underwear. Bad scripts start off with a throwaway kill, then introduce a new cast of characters and spend the next 25 pages just killing time until the act break. Worse, most of the time, the lead characters are so annoying I start rooting for the killer.

A good horror script doesn’t just kill a character in the first five or ten pages, it teases why this horror/thriller is different from all the others out there. Scream is brilliant because the opening establishes a unique M.O. for the killer – he calls up his victims on the phone and taunts them with movie trivia. Even before the Drew Barrymore character is killed, you know you’re reading something different.

The trick is that since the character introduced in the first scene is also usually dead by the end of that sequence, the audience needs a reason to stick around. That’s why you have to make your antagonist and his methods distinctive. In the case of a sequel, it helps to have a really inventive kill. Scream 2 doesn’t get lazy there either. While an audience watches a “Stab” movie, based on the events of the first Scream, Jada Pinkett Smith is killed in the audience and then bleeds to death standing in front of the screen. That’s a powerful image.

Tone. Genre. Craft. You don’t even need your lead characters to display those three elements. (But it doesn’t hurt.)

So if your story is about Bigfoots killing people out in the woods, make sure your opening is memorable. Don’t just have a generic kill, and don’t think that hyper-violence is the only way to get an audience’s attention. Show me the monster, and then show me why I should care what it does.

Reader questions: Ad-libs and TV submissions

"JW Doom" writes:

Is it ever okay to indicate that the actors should ad lib some minimal dialogue, like simple introductions, or exclamations of astonishment?

Yeah, I see this in pro scripts from time to time.  I don't think it makes much difference one way or another, though it's not something I'd do often.

Also when I've seen it done, it's limited to the action description.  Basically, it's just direction to a large group of people reacting to what's just happened.  (i.e. "President Collins leaves the podium and exits the White House Press Room without responding to questions.  Ad-lib press responses: "Are you going to resign?"  "How do you explain the phone logs?" etc.)

DON'T write "Ad lib" as actual dialogue.  That's just lazy and it immediately pulls a reader out of the scene.

Example:

BRIAN FANTANA
Ron, you smell like a horse's ass!

RON BURGUNDY
[Ad lib]

 But if the idea is that the ad-lib is only there to add to the flavor of the scene, it's probably safe.

"Mandyloveswithoutatrace" asks:

i was wondering if there is a gatekeeper for TV spec scripts, if not do you know where they go first or if they go straight to the creator or show runner( is that what you call the person in charge or is that the same thing as saying the creator of the show) i'm trying to learn the lingo. 

Most of the time, to submit to a show-runner, you need an agent.  (I'm sure there are rare instances where you might have a direct connection to a TV writer and manage to by-pass the usual submission process, but that's a less-common occurrence.)  If you're writing a TV-spec, it's probably going to be used for one of two purposes: as a sample to get representation, or as a sample to get hired on staff.  In the case of the former, you're going to have to get it past an agency reader, just like any other submission.

But when it comes to submitting a spec to a show, you never submit your sample episode to the show you've written that episode for.  In other words, if you're writing a Criminal Minds, it's not going to go to Criminal Minds, but it WILL be a valid submission to any other crime procedural.  Assuming your agent submits the script to the show, it will likely be read by a story editor before being passed on up the ladder to the showrunner.

So once the spec has actually gotten to the show, I don't think you're dealing with a reader like me so much as you're dealing with a show staffer, but I could be wrong about this.  I've never read for a series.

Tuesday Talkback: Biggest Summer Surprise

Now that summer is over, what wide release surprised you the most?

For me, it was probably The Amazing Spider-Man.  I was pretty skeptical of a reboot coming on the heels of the fairly strong Sam Rami series that launched a mere ten years earlier.  The fact that the newest adaptation was made in large part to ensure that Sony held onto the rights rather than let them revert back to Marvel also suggested a rather cynically-produced production.

And then there was the fact that they were retelling the origin in detail.  That seemed to promise that the film was going to cover ground already excellently done in the first Rami film, or that it would make changes largely for the sake of being different.  To be fair, I did get a distinct whiff of the latter, though it wasn't nearly as detrimental as it could have been.

And yet.... there was a lot I ended up liking in the film.  I still think Rami's first film is a stronger origin and I prefer the tone and style of that movie to the new one.  Also, no one will ever convince me that The Lizard is less ridiculous than the admittedly silly Green Goblin outfit - but despite that the film worked well enough for me.  In particular, I thought that Emma Stone was a big step up as the romantic interest.  While Andrew Garfield comes up even with Tobey Maguire performance-wise, Garfield's chemistry with Stone is absolutely a cut above the pairing in the previous series.

A close second for me would probably be Ted. This is largely because I'm not the biggest fan of Family Guy's style of storytelling.  (You know the episode of South Park where Cartman rails against Family Guy?  I'd voiced a lot of those criticisms for years before that episode was produced.)  Thus, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Seth MacFarlane didn't rely on the non-sequitir type of humor much at all in this film.  (The flashback that riffs on Airplane is pretty much the only concession in this direction.)

So how about you guys?  What suprisingly worked or didn't work for you?

Breaking up with Superman and comics in general - part 2

Part 1

They say the Golden Age of comics is 13, meaning that whatever you read at 13 is what you measure everything else against. There's probably some truth to that. I know that if you asked me what my Golden Era of Superman was, it would probably cover the comics from 1988-1994. There were so many good creators on the books then: Dan Jurgens, Brett Breeding, Jerry Ordway, Roger Stern, George Perez, Tom Grummett, Doug Hazelwood, Karl Kesel, Bob McLeod, and many others. It was also that era that was pretty much my gateway into most of the books I'd continue to buy for years to come, including Green Lantern, Justice League and my infrequent Batman habit.

Like I said, I'm a sucker for a good "hero's return" story. "Reign of the Superman" might be the ultimate such story, telling the epic tale of Superman's return from the death. There are two things I really took from this arc as a writer. The story involved four new Supermans appearing after Superman's death: a man in an armored suit, a teenage clone, a cyborg, and a visored vigilante. Each claimed to be Superman to one degree or another, though it was pretty clear that if any of them were, it would have to be one of the latter two.

In fact, one of the first issues back dropped so many clues that the visored Superman was the true one, that a guessing game seemed almost pointless. I can't really get into the legerdemain that the writers expertly pulled off in concealing who the Cyborg and the visored one really were, as well as how Superman eventually came back. Suffice to say, they hid some clues in plain sight, and used some clever misdirection in other instances, all while drawing on plot threads that had been set-up long ago. In particular, I recall being floored by some of Roger Stern's reveals in Action Comics 690.

It's probably fair to say I've learned as much about good writing from comic books as I have from movies and TV shows.

But of course, this storyline ended with Superman being restored once more, coming to the rescue. It's hard to go wrong with a "return" moment. It's a very Joseph Campbell sort of mythic element. The limited series Kingdom Come is also a well-done out-of-continuity tale that deals with the return of Superman after a long absence. It's also a great deconstruction of the superhero concept, and an allegory for how the more violent comics of the 90s threatened to supplant the traditional superheroes.

When comics are done right, they can tell these kinds of epic and yet still meaningful stories.

So what got me to finally kick the habit? It's not that there haven't been good comic stories since 1994. There have been a lot, actually. I'm a sucker for most anything Geoff Johns has written, from Teen Titans to his massive rebuilding of the Green Lantern mythos.  I've enjoyed some of DC's bigger storylines, like The Final Night, Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis and 52. In fact, there was a point about six years ago where DC really seemed to be on the right track and doing exciting things with their characters.

But there have been a number of lows. The Superman titles have been inconsistent for a long time. New creators have been often too quick to discard continuity they don't want to be bothered with, or often just don't seem to understand the character and his world. New Krypton, a saga that stretched out for over a year in the books, should have been epic. Unfortunately the conclusion was rushed and any fallout from the story were quickly swept off-screen so that a new creative team could come in with a clean slate.

In fact, the ending of that story was probably the closest I came to walking away from comics forever. It essentially had the U.S. Government blow up a planet execute the genocide of 90,000 surviving Kryptonians in a pre-emptive strike. It was incredibly distasteful, made worse by the fact that there were no consequences on-screen for the conspirators. Even the heroic "Superman returns" moment couldn't paper over my disgust this time.

This was followed by a year-long story where Superman walked from one end of the U.S. to another.  It was another "soul-search" story, but it was the wrong story at the wrong time. Maybe as a two-parter it would have worked, but after over a year in the other epic, it was a miscalculation to not return to a more familiar status quo for a while.

That might have been the final straw for me if not for the reboot last year. DC restarted the continuity in all of its titles last September. I very nearly treated this as a jumping off point, but decided I'd stick with the relaunch for a year. I couldn't deny that a fresh start offered a lot of possibilities.

One year later, I'm walking away for good. Not just from the Superman books but from all of my regular comics.  Superman is currently appearing in three books and he reads like a completely different guy in each of them. One of those books is just about to debut its third creative team in a year, which pretty much backs up my sense that there's no consistent vision or creative direction for the character.

On top of that, before the reboot, I really loved the sense of connection and family between Superman, his cousin Supergirl and his clone Superboy. There was a fun, and frankly touching family dynamic that developed among the hero and his sidekicks. In the new story, that connection is severed. Supergirl wants nothing to do with him and everything that made Superboy a fun character - one of my favorites of the old continuity - has been utterly negated in this version.

And then there's the fact that none of the writers have even attempted to develop the Lois/Clark dynamic, and all indications are they don't plan on doing so any time soon.

The sad thing is that I didn't outgrow the hobby or the characters. I can still read all those stories I loved and get the same enjoyment and excitement out of them as I did when they were published. So that's what I'm going to do. The fact that an inferior version of the mythos is currently in production in no way causes my old comics to disappear from existence. It was a good run, but whoever DC is producing these books for now, it's not for me.

So I'm walking away. Completely. I don't enjoy these characters. I don't enjoy these stories and I don't enjoy this hobby anymore. Congrats architects of the New DC, you ended a 23-year love affair. I wish you well, and I sincerely hope someone is enjoying what you're selling, but this is it for me. I don't recognize your Superman and I no longer wish to channel Little Ricky from SUPERMAN III, saying "Superman, you're just in a slump! You'll be great again!" as he shouts at the drunken evil Superman.

But as I've said... I'm always a sucker for a good "return of Superman" storyline and I hope that one day you'll produce a version of the character that again makes me want to... look up in the sky.

"It's not about where you were born. Or what powers you have. Or what you wear on your chest. It's about what you do... It's about action." - Superman, Infinite Crisis #7, written by Geoff Johns.