Episode 326: The WGA Strike
3 years ago
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Tuesday Talkback: Are you joining Black List 3.0?
Due to the way posts were scheduled last week, I never really got a chance to ask this - how many of you are considering or have already joined Black List 3.0?
Monday, October 22, 2012
What worked and didn't work in Paranormal Activity 4
I saw Paranormal Activity 4 this weekend and found it to be something of a mixed bag. I have to admit, I enjoy these found footage horror films largely from the angle of looking for the seams. I rarely am able to get immerced in the conceit that what we're seeing is "actually happening" but oddly, I really enjoy spotting all the tricks and innovations that the creators use to create that illusion.
But rather than pontificate about found footage, just go read my old post on the matter here.
There was a fair amount I liked about the film. For one thing - casting director Terri Taylor should be commended for finding the young actress who plays the lead, Kathryn Newton. The 15 year-old really has to carry most of the movie and it's clear the wrong actress in that part could have sunk the film. She manages to be the most likable and most sympathetic protagonist in any of the PA films. It helps that she has great chemistry with the actor playing her boyfriend, Matt Shively. Shivley's actually 22, but he manages to play a credible 15 or 16.
It really enhances the film to have teenagers who actually look like teenagers. We're so used to seeing actors in their mid-twenties playing high school students that it almost takes us aback to be reminded how young and vulnerable actual teenagers look. It actually makes terror more vivid because these victims don't look like over-developed adults. Even though these movies always end with the heroes getting killed, I found myself really wanting these kids to come out of this okay.
And yet, when they met their end, I felt cheated in a way that had little to do with the downer nature of the ending. It was a little bit of a surprise, especially since the second film went out of its way to spare its teenage protagonist from the slaughter. Mostly, I felt let down because every previous sequel tried to expand the mythology. The mythology and the backstory deepened, perhaps not completely, but enough that it felt like this chapter needed to be the definitive end.
Over the course of the previous three movies, we learned that the demon haunting Katie in the first film was a demon that had made a pact with a coven led by Katie's grandmother. The pact demanded payment in the form of the first male child born in the family line. This turned out to be Hunter, the infant stolen away in the second film, who resurfaces in Paranormal Activity 4. The events of this film lead to Hunter ending up in the possession of the coven. Unfortunately, his fate after that is ambiguous and it's pretty well hinted that Kathryn's character meets her end trying to save him.
As profitable as these films are, it's probably unrealistic to expect Paramount to produce a definitive conclusion before the box office totally bottoms out. The problem is that three films of build-up demanded a more meaningful climax to the Hunter story. Basically, the film ends right before the true climax should begin, giving the audience a massive case of blue balls.
Other writing issues:
Why do Alex's parents agree to take in Robbie? Alex's mother meets Robbie's mother Katie only once, briefly. How many of you would taken in a strange kid belonging to a neighbor whom you met for only three minutes once.
How the hell did Hunter come to be adopted by the family as Wyatt? There's a big red herring in that we're clearly set up to think that Robbie is actually Hunter, but as it turns out, Wyatt is revealed to be Katie's nephew. This unfortunately leads us to wonder how Hunter ended up going from being in Katie's clutches at the end of the second film, to going into the adoption system. There are some indications that Katie had to wait until Hunter was of age so that the pact could be completed, so that at least explains why he wasn't delivered to the demon immediately. Yet I can't figure out how or why she would have lost custody of the kid without revealing herself to the authorities in the process.
As for Robbie's real identity, I'm presuming that Katie was pregnant when she got possessed and that the boy is her actual son. I'm going to further suppose that since Robbie was the second male child born to that family line that he couldn't be offered up to the demon to fulfill the pact.
Why does Alex stop watching the videos? Alex and her boyfriend are smart enough to rig up a surveilance system that basically turns every laptop in the house into a hidden camera. For about 2/3 of the film, we see them dilligently reviewing the footage and finding evidence of weird stuff. Then, when things become a little less ambiguous (i.e. the knife incident), Alex conveniently stops reviewing the tapes.
The script tries to cover this by showing Alex having trouble logging in, but that's a fix that actually makes the problem worse because it creates an unanswered question about why Alex's password has suddenly been changed. (Maybe you could argue one of the kids did it under the direction of the demon, but then why not just turn off the cameras or trash the laptop altogether?)
Was Katie really in the hospital? If so, what was wrong with her? If not, why was she faking? Robbie ends up with Alex's family because his mom Katie becomes sick under strange circumstances. Not only is her condition never explained beyond this, but Alex points out that Katie doesn't look like someone who was sick. That line seems designed to make us suspect there's more to her illness than meets the eye - but we know that at a minimum, there was an ambulance that took her away. We get zero clue to what she was sick with. It's just a weak plot device designed to isolate Robbie.
The arrival of the coven members also doesn't make much sense. Since Katie obviously knows all of these people, why wouldn't one of them take Robbie in? Are all of these holes supposed to lead us to the conclusion that Katie went to these lengths to plant Robbie in with Alex's family, knowing he'd make contact with Hunter? Surely there had to be easier ways to insinuate oneself with that family. (A good start? Try not acting like a fucking weirdo. Just knock on the door and say "Hi, I'm Katie. My son and I are new to the neighborhood and I thought it'd be good for Robbie to play with boys his own age.")
Those are the biggest issues with regard to the script's internal logic. I have a few others, but they start to enter the realm of nitpicking. Did you guys see it this weekend? What did you think?
But rather than pontificate about found footage, just go read my old post on the matter here.
There was a fair amount I liked about the film. For one thing - casting director Terri Taylor should be commended for finding the young actress who plays the lead, Kathryn Newton. The 15 year-old really has to carry most of the movie and it's clear the wrong actress in that part could have sunk the film. She manages to be the most likable and most sympathetic protagonist in any of the PA films. It helps that she has great chemistry with the actor playing her boyfriend, Matt Shively. Shivley's actually 22, but he manages to play a credible 15 or 16.
It really enhances the film to have teenagers who actually look like teenagers. We're so used to seeing actors in their mid-twenties playing high school students that it almost takes us aback to be reminded how young and vulnerable actual teenagers look. It actually makes terror more vivid because these victims don't look like over-developed adults. Even though these movies always end with the heroes getting killed, I found myself really wanting these kids to come out of this okay.
And yet, when they met their end, I felt cheated in a way that had little to do with the downer nature of the ending. It was a little bit of a surprise, especially since the second film went out of its way to spare its teenage protagonist from the slaughter. Mostly, I felt let down because every previous sequel tried to expand the mythology. The mythology and the backstory deepened, perhaps not completely, but enough that it felt like this chapter needed to be the definitive end.
Over the course of the previous three movies, we learned that the demon haunting Katie in the first film was a demon that had made a pact with a coven led by Katie's grandmother. The pact demanded payment in the form of the first male child born in the family line. This turned out to be Hunter, the infant stolen away in the second film, who resurfaces in Paranormal Activity 4. The events of this film lead to Hunter ending up in the possession of the coven. Unfortunately, his fate after that is ambiguous and it's pretty well hinted that Kathryn's character meets her end trying to save him.
As profitable as these films are, it's probably unrealistic to expect Paramount to produce a definitive conclusion before the box office totally bottoms out. The problem is that three films of build-up demanded a more meaningful climax to the Hunter story. Basically, the film ends right before the true climax should begin, giving the audience a massive case of blue balls.
Other writing issues:
Why do Alex's parents agree to take in Robbie? Alex's mother meets Robbie's mother Katie only once, briefly. How many of you would taken in a strange kid belonging to a neighbor whom you met for only three minutes once.
How the hell did Hunter come to be adopted by the family as Wyatt? There's a big red herring in that we're clearly set up to think that Robbie is actually Hunter, but as it turns out, Wyatt is revealed to be Katie's nephew. This unfortunately leads us to wonder how Hunter ended up going from being in Katie's clutches at the end of the second film, to going into the adoption system. There are some indications that Katie had to wait until Hunter was of age so that the pact could be completed, so that at least explains why he wasn't delivered to the demon immediately. Yet I can't figure out how or why she would have lost custody of the kid without revealing herself to the authorities in the process.
As for Robbie's real identity, I'm presuming that Katie was pregnant when she got possessed and that the boy is her actual son. I'm going to further suppose that since Robbie was the second male child born to that family line that he couldn't be offered up to the demon to fulfill the pact.
Why does Alex stop watching the videos? Alex and her boyfriend are smart enough to rig up a surveilance system that basically turns every laptop in the house into a hidden camera. For about 2/3 of the film, we see them dilligently reviewing the footage and finding evidence of weird stuff. Then, when things become a little less ambiguous (i.e. the knife incident), Alex conveniently stops reviewing the tapes.
The script tries to cover this by showing Alex having trouble logging in, but that's a fix that actually makes the problem worse because it creates an unanswered question about why Alex's password has suddenly been changed. (Maybe you could argue one of the kids did it under the direction of the demon, but then why not just turn off the cameras or trash the laptop altogether?)
Was Katie really in the hospital? If so, what was wrong with her? If not, why was she faking? Robbie ends up with Alex's family because his mom Katie becomes sick under strange circumstances. Not only is her condition never explained beyond this, but Alex points out that Katie doesn't look like someone who was sick. That line seems designed to make us suspect there's more to her illness than meets the eye - but we know that at a minimum, there was an ambulance that took her away. We get zero clue to what she was sick with. It's just a weak plot device designed to isolate Robbie.
The arrival of the coven members also doesn't make much sense. Since Katie obviously knows all of these people, why wouldn't one of them take Robbie in? Are all of these holes supposed to lead us to the conclusion that Katie went to these lengths to plant Robbie in with Alex's family, knowing he'd make contact with Hunter? Surely there had to be easier ways to insinuate oneself with that family. (A good start? Try not acting like a fucking weirdo. Just knock on the door and say "Hi, I'm Katie. My son and I are new to the neighborhood and I thought it'd be good for Robbie to play with boys his own age.")
Those are the biggest issues with regard to the script's internal logic. I have a few others, but they start to enter the realm of nitpicking. Did you guys see it this weekend? What did you think?
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
What screenwriting style or voice should you use?
Adam writes in with a question:
With screenwriting as a hobby, I read screenplays online. One thing that stands out to me is the prose or voice that the writer uses. I know it's really down to writing style, but when I'm reading a script (like DOOM) which has this arrogant, douchebag prose, it's fairly annoying to read. For example, the Social Network screenplay has this simple, descriptive style shot through the description. Yeah, the latter was written by Aaron Sorkin himself, and it's a lot less action oriented than the former, but do you have a professional opinion on the writing style to use?
Another easy one - whichever voice comes to you naturally. If you're uncomfortable with a particular writing style, don't try to emulate it because your own voice will never come through. It'll feel forced and hackneyed and it'll be harder to figure out what YOU bring to this script.
Every reader probably sees dozens of scripts a year where the writer has tried to ape Shane Black's style of talking to the reader and failed miserably at it. It's sort of like when you read a story from someone trying to evoke '30s pulp novels with detectives and gangsters. The prose all reads as purple because the best the writer can do is imitate rather than immerse.
And frankly, some of this will also depend on the tone and the style of the movie. A balls-to-the-wall action movie like DOOM might benefit from an in-your-face style of writing that is in the spirit of the film. I doubt you'd want to use that tone for a more intimate drama like SMASHED, though.
With screenwriting as a hobby, I read screenplays online. One thing that stands out to me is the prose or voice that the writer uses. I know it's really down to writing style, but when I'm reading a script (like DOOM) which has this arrogant, douchebag prose, it's fairly annoying to read. For example, the Social Network screenplay has this simple, descriptive style shot through the description. Yeah, the latter was written by Aaron Sorkin himself, and it's a lot less action oriented than the former, but do you have a professional opinion on the writing style to use?
Another easy one - whichever voice comes to you naturally. If you're uncomfortable with a particular writing style, don't try to emulate it because your own voice will never come through. It'll feel forced and hackneyed and it'll be harder to figure out what YOU bring to this script.
Every reader probably sees dozens of scripts a year where the writer has tried to ape Shane Black's style of talking to the reader and failed miserably at it. It's sort of like when you read a story from someone trying to evoke '30s pulp novels with detectives and gangsters. The prose all reads as purple because the best the writer can do is imitate rather than immerse.
And frankly, some of this will also depend on the tone and the style of the movie. A balls-to-the-wall action movie like DOOM might benefit from an in-your-face style of writing that is in the spirit of the film. I doubt you'd want to use that tone for a more intimate drama like SMASHED, though.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
EXCLUSIVE interview with Franklin Leonard about Black List 3.0!
As promised yesterday, here's my EXCLUSIVE video interview with Black List creator Franklin Leonard about the site's newly launched service, Black List 3.0.
For those who don't know, the Black List has been around since 2005 and is is an annual list of Hollywood's most liked unproduced screenplays. As their website boasts, "Since its inception, more than 125 past Black List scripts have become theatrically released feature films grossing over $11 billion in total and winning 20 Academy Awards from over 80 nominations. Both 2010 and 2011 Academy Award Best Pictures THE KING’S SPEECH and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE were Black List scripts. Along with Diablo Cody’s JUNO and Aaron Sorkin’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Black List scripts have won four of the last eight screenwriting Academy Awards."
Franklin Leonard has worked in Hollywood since 2002 and was most recently Vice President, Creative Affairs at Overbrook Entertainment. Before that he was a Director of Development at Universal and has also worked at Appian Way.
(Apologies for some of the sound issues, folks. One of our mics decided to have a little fun with us.)
Franklin wanted me to correct two misstatments he makes in the interview. First, current membership is at over 1,100, not one thousand. Also, the site only has about 3600 titles on it, not 5000.
Hopefully you found this interview useful and please pass it along!
Related: The What, How, and Why of the Black List: The Long Answer by Franklin Leonard
For those who don't know, the Black List has been around since 2005 and is is an annual list of Hollywood's most liked unproduced screenplays. As their website boasts, "Since its inception, more than 125 past Black List scripts have become theatrically released feature films grossing over $11 billion in total and winning 20 Academy Awards from over 80 nominations. Both 2010 and 2011 Academy Award Best Pictures THE KING’S SPEECH and SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE were Black List scripts. Along with Diablo Cody’s JUNO and Aaron Sorkin’s THE SOCIAL NETWORK, Black List scripts have won four of the last eight screenwriting Academy Awards."
Franklin Leonard has worked in Hollywood since 2002 and was most recently Vice President, Creative Affairs at Overbrook Entertainment. Before that he was a Director of Development at Universal and has also worked at Appian Way.
(Apologies for some of the sound issues, folks. One of our mics decided to have a little fun with us.)
Franklin wanted me to correct two misstatments he makes in the interview. First, current membership is at over 1,100, not one thousand. Also, the site only has about 3600 titles on it, not 5000.
Hopefully you found this interview useful and please pass it along!
Related: The What, How, and Why of the Black List: The Long Answer by Franklin Leonard
Monday, October 15, 2012
Why every aspiring writer should be excited about Black List 3.0
I'll say this for Franklin Leonard, he doesn't do anything small.
The Black List creator has just announced a new feature to the Black List website, dubbed Black List 3.0. Just last week, membership to the Black List website was made free for all industry pros. Currently the site has a tracking board of sorts, where those industry pros are able to rate scripts that are listed within the database. (The scripts themselves are not stored, just the identifying information like title, writer, representation, attachments and so on.)
But the big move has come this week. Starting soon, non-pros will be able to pay a fee to make their scripts available on the Black List site. For an additional fee, the script can be covered by trusted industry readers, who will then evaluate and rate the script. Thus, if I upload my spec BIG ROOSTERS & SOAKED KITTENS and pay both fees, the following will happen:
First, a Black List approved reader will read the entire script and rate it according to the sites metrics. As expected the coverage will also detail the genre/s and most likely the budget of the script. Then, that information will be made available in the database for as long as I pay the monthly fee.
(And let's be realistic, the fees are necessary if any industry readers worth their salt are going to take their time to read these submissions. It's just simple economics - if you want quality gatekeepers, they're going to need to have some compensation for their time.)
So let's say the Black List writer really liked my low-to-mid budget comedy and gave it a score that averaged out to 8.5 out of 10. Every member who searches for a script with those parameters will have access to my script, my coverage and my contact information. So for the price of a late submission to a prestigious contest, I could end up with a script request from a major company or two. Or ten.
And here's where the real brilliance of Mr. Leonard's scheme comes in. The Black List is a brand that everyone in town knows. It is perhaps the most coveted insider list and it's spawned more than a few imitators. People trust the Black List... and Mr. Leonard just made access to the site completely free for them. At present, I'm told there are over 1,100 industry pros signed up as members.
I don't care how many tracking boards most development people are already signed up for. If something like this is free, they're gonna sign up for it, if only to have the inside track on the next Black List. By doing this, it practically guarantees that The Black List will have a higher quality of clientele than something like InkTip.
Granted, InkTip is a little cheaper at $60 for six months, but there all you're posting is the logline. At BL 3.0, there's a gatekeeper there who's going to play town crier for anything worth while.
This also solves the problem with Triggerstreet. Over there, users can post their scripts for free... but they're only being read and rated by other community members. Thus, there's less of a chance those readers will have the same discerning tastes as readers who work within the industry and in a worst case scenario, it could be the blind leading the blind.
And then there's Amazon Studios. Look, you all know what I think of the site by now. I think Black List 3.0 totally demolishes Amazon in every fashion. Sure, Amazon was also free... but at the cost of giving them a temporary exclusive option and the right to buy the script for a predetermined price. Plus, does anyone think Amazon's actually going to get a feature film released?
With the Black List, you're getting your material in front of people who've actually made real movies before - not dilettantes who were fixated on producing test films. You own the script, you (or your representation) has full ability to negotiate the sale. The Black List doesn't gloom onto your work at all. They don't option it, they don't attach themselves as producers. Their involvement goes only as far as making the introduction possible. (They're basically going "Oprah, Uma. Uma, Oprah.")
And let's talk contests and fellowships. As we've talked about before, most contests are probably going to run you between $40-$75. In most of those cases, that's just the fee to enter. You rarely get coverage or anything else. We've also mentioned that there are few contests that are really strong at jump-starting careers. It's my supposition that you'll probably have access to more real industry insiders through The Black List than through most contest submissions. Even if the cost for a month of posting is a little more than a contest submission, the potential benefit far outweighs that.
And then let's not forget the coverage/scouting services that evaluate your script and promise to pass it to their contacts if it's deemed good enough. Coverage from ScriptShark will run you $149. Script Pipeline charges $350. And then there's a lone reader out there who's currently charging $1000 a read. (The cherry on top of that is that he also is trying to be a manager and a producer. No one should ever have to pay either of those sorts of professionals for a read, as that's stepping into some very murky ethical territory.)
So if you're one of the people who would pay to enter a contest, or who would pay those huge fees just for coverage and the barest promise of "access," you should be jumping for joy about Black List 3.0. It seems like a good idea on it's own, but when you put it in context with all the other "breaking into Hollywood" services there are, this has the potential to be a clear winner.
It's basically a Voltron of everything good about Triggerstreet, InkTip, Amazon Studios and most contests, with very little of the most derided aspects of those services.
I saw a lot of negativity about this venture last month when details started leaking out on Deadline. That disappoints me for a lot of reasons, chiefly because I think this is unquestionably one of the best opportunities to come along for aspiring writers in a long time. I see a lot of potential here and a lot of opportunity. But opportunism? No, I don't feel that at all.
I don't know Franklin well. I've only met him a couple of times and have mostly communicated now and then via email and Twitter. I can say that he's struck me as an incredibly intelligent and above board professional and I'm truly convinced he has the best of intentions with this site.
But I know that there will be a lot of questions about this, so I've reached out to Franklin Leonard and I'll be posting an EXCLUSIVE video interview with him tomorrow! (That's right - that means the creator of the Black List is going to submit to questioning by a puppet!) Spread the word and come back tomorrow to see me interrogate Franklin about Black List 3.0
Related:
Go Into The Story: New Black List Feature for aspiring writers
Amanda Pendolino: The Black List Launches services for aspiring writers
The What, How, and Why of the Black List: The Long Answer by Franklin Leonard
Screenwriter Geoff LaTulippe with "My Thoughts on the Black List Project"
The Black List creator has just announced a new feature to the Black List website, dubbed Black List 3.0. Just last week, membership to the Black List website was made free for all industry pros. Currently the site has a tracking board of sorts, where those industry pros are able to rate scripts that are listed within the database. (The scripts themselves are not stored, just the identifying information like title, writer, representation, attachments and so on.)
But the big move has come this week. Starting soon, non-pros will be able to pay a fee to make their scripts available on the Black List site. For an additional fee, the script can be covered by trusted industry readers, who will then evaluate and rate the script. Thus, if I upload my spec BIG ROOSTERS & SOAKED KITTENS and pay both fees, the following will happen:
First, a Black List approved reader will read the entire script and rate it according to the sites metrics. As expected the coverage will also detail the genre/s and most likely the budget of the script. Then, that information will be made available in the database for as long as I pay the monthly fee.
(And let's be realistic, the fees are necessary if any industry readers worth their salt are going to take their time to read these submissions. It's just simple economics - if you want quality gatekeepers, they're going to need to have some compensation for their time.)
So let's say the Black List writer really liked my low-to-mid budget comedy and gave it a score that averaged out to 8.5 out of 10. Every member who searches for a script with those parameters will have access to my script, my coverage and my contact information. So for the price of a late submission to a prestigious contest, I could end up with a script request from a major company or two. Or ten.
And here's where the real brilliance of Mr. Leonard's scheme comes in. The Black List is a brand that everyone in town knows. It is perhaps the most coveted insider list and it's spawned more than a few imitators. People trust the Black List... and Mr. Leonard just made access to the site completely free for them. At present, I'm told there are over 1,100 industry pros signed up as members.
I don't care how many tracking boards most development people are already signed up for. If something like this is free, they're gonna sign up for it, if only to have the inside track on the next Black List. By doing this, it practically guarantees that The Black List will have a higher quality of clientele than something like InkTip.
Granted, InkTip is a little cheaper at $60 for six months, but there all you're posting is the logline. At BL 3.0, there's a gatekeeper there who's going to play town crier for anything worth while.
This also solves the problem with Triggerstreet. Over there, users can post their scripts for free... but they're only being read and rated by other community members. Thus, there's less of a chance those readers will have the same discerning tastes as readers who work within the industry and in a worst case scenario, it could be the blind leading the blind.
And then there's Amazon Studios. Look, you all know what I think of the site by now. I think Black List 3.0 totally demolishes Amazon in every fashion. Sure, Amazon was also free... but at the cost of giving them a temporary exclusive option and the right to buy the script for a predetermined price. Plus, does anyone think Amazon's actually going to get a feature film released?
With the Black List, you're getting your material in front of people who've actually made real movies before - not dilettantes who were fixated on producing test films. You own the script, you (or your representation) has full ability to negotiate the sale. The Black List doesn't gloom onto your work at all. They don't option it, they don't attach themselves as producers. Their involvement goes only as far as making the introduction possible. (They're basically going "Oprah, Uma. Uma, Oprah.")
And let's talk contests and fellowships. As we've talked about before, most contests are probably going to run you between $40-$75. In most of those cases, that's just the fee to enter. You rarely get coverage or anything else. We've also mentioned that there are few contests that are really strong at jump-starting careers. It's my supposition that you'll probably have access to more real industry insiders through The Black List than through most contest submissions. Even if the cost for a month of posting is a little more than a contest submission, the potential benefit far outweighs that.
And then let's not forget the coverage/scouting services that evaluate your script and promise to pass it to their contacts if it's deemed good enough. Coverage from ScriptShark will run you $149. Script Pipeline charges $350. And then there's a lone reader out there who's currently charging $1000 a read. (The cherry on top of that is that he also is trying to be a manager and a producer. No one should ever have to pay either of those sorts of professionals for a read, as that's stepping into some very murky ethical territory.)
So if you're one of the people who would pay to enter a contest, or who would pay those huge fees just for coverage and the barest promise of "access," you should be jumping for joy about Black List 3.0. It seems like a good idea on it's own, but when you put it in context with all the other "breaking into Hollywood" services there are, this has the potential to be a clear winner.
It's basically a Voltron of everything good about Triggerstreet, InkTip, Amazon Studios and most contests, with very little of the most derided aspects of those services.
I saw a lot of negativity about this venture last month when details started leaking out on Deadline. That disappoints me for a lot of reasons, chiefly because I think this is unquestionably one of the best opportunities to come along for aspiring writers in a long time. I see a lot of potential here and a lot of opportunity. But opportunism? No, I don't feel that at all.
I don't know Franklin well. I've only met him a couple of times and have mostly communicated now and then via email and Twitter. I can say that he's struck me as an incredibly intelligent and above board professional and I'm truly convinced he has the best of intentions with this site.
But I know that there will be a lot of questions about this, so I've reached out to Franklin Leonard and I'll be posting an EXCLUSIVE video interview with him tomorrow! (That's right - that means the creator of the Black List is going to submit to questioning by a puppet!) Spread the word and come back tomorrow to see me interrogate Franklin about Black List 3.0
Related:
Go Into The Story: New Black List Feature for aspiring writers
Amanda Pendolino: The Black List Launches services for aspiring writers
The What, How, and Why of the Black List: The Long Answer by Franklin Leonard
Screenwriter Geoff LaTulippe with "My Thoughts on the Black List Project"
Writing scenes for famous actors to play themselves
Lance asks:
The main character in my comedy script is loosely based on a famous actor. From the character's description, mannerisms and dialogue, it is very easy to conclude whom he is based on. This parody, however, is fictionalized enough to avoid a lawsuit.
It’s roughly akin to the Tim Allen character in “Galaxy Quest.” It’s pretty obvious that character is supposed to evoke William Shatner.
Some fellow writers insist that my hero should not be written as a fictional character, but as the real person. They claim this could be a way to attract that actor to play himself. If that fails, the studio could hire an impersonator as in “Saturday Night Live” sketches, as long as the real actor signs off on it. They argue any or all of this could be changed later on if need be.
I say this is a recipe for disaster.
As you’ve acknowledged, some overworked script readers look for any excuse to toss a script in the trash. Getting actors to play themselves can be very hard. Yes, "Being John Malkovich" got made but I believe that to be the exception and not the rule.
As far as getting an impersonator goes, no studio would want to take on this big of a legal headache. SNL makes seven-minute sketches with broad caricature-like parodies when using a real person’s name. I believe the consequences of this course of action would be much different if the character is the protagonist in a motion picture.
So, my question is, who’s right?
A long question with a very short answer - you are, largely for the reasons you cite. If your script is coming into the company at a low level, say, in response to a query, you're really hurting yourself if the lead character is a famous actor playing themselves.
You want the longer version? If I'm reading "Being Jennifer Aniston," my first thought is going to be, "Is Jennifer Aniston attached to this?" If she's not, then it's a waste of my time to write up the script. Your friends might argue that, "Well, it could just as easily be rewritten to be "Being Katie Holmes," but that's also a problem. If you've done your job, the writing will be so specific to Jennifer Aniston that you can't just pop her out and put Katie Holmes in. Every gag and every major scene would need adjustment.
And if the script is written in a way that DOESN'T force this sort of rewrite, then one has to wonder why Jennifer Aniston is written so generically.
Pro-writers will get the benefit of the doubt on this, by the way. Though the sitcom DON'T TRUST THE B---- IN APT 23 currently features James Van Der Beek as himself, the original draft of the pilot was written for Lance Bass. Of course in that case, JVDB is more of a supporting character than the guy driving the show and the creator and producers were established Hollywood players who got the benefit of the doubt.
Also, is it okay to invoke the name of the person being parodied when writing the fictional character? Could the writer of “Galaxy Quest” describe the hero in the screenplay as a “William Shatner-type?”
Yeah, that's a fair move. There are a couple schools of thought on this, though. Some writers and readers hate this because they consider the shorthand to be a form of cheating. I can see that side of it. If the character evokes William Shatner, than his actions and attitudes should speak louder than that description. Remember, the audience needs to figure out who this guy is from what he says and does - not how the script sums him up in an aside.
I usually avoid that sort of thing when I write, by the way. I'd also suggest that if you do it, not to use that kind of description more than once.
The main character in my comedy script is loosely based on a famous actor. From the character's description, mannerisms and dialogue, it is very easy to conclude whom he is based on. This parody, however, is fictionalized enough to avoid a lawsuit.
It’s roughly akin to the Tim Allen character in “Galaxy Quest.” It’s pretty obvious that character is supposed to evoke William Shatner.
Some fellow writers insist that my hero should not be written as a fictional character, but as the real person. They claim this could be a way to attract that actor to play himself. If that fails, the studio could hire an impersonator as in “Saturday Night Live” sketches, as long as the real actor signs off on it. They argue any or all of this could be changed later on if need be.
I say this is a recipe for disaster.
As you’ve acknowledged, some overworked script readers look for any excuse to toss a script in the trash. Getting actors to play themselves can be very hard. Yes, "Being John Malkovich" got made but I believe that to be the exception and not the rule.
As far as getting an impersonator goes, no studio would want to take on this big of a legal headache. SNL makes seven-minute sketches with broad caricature-like parodies when using a real person’s name. I believe the consequences of this course of action would be much different if the character is the protagonist in a motion picture.
So, my question is, who’s right?
A long question with a very short answer - you are, largely for the reasons you cite. If your script is coming into the company at a low level, say, in response to a query, you're really hurting yourself if the lead character is a famous actor playing themselves.
You want the longer version? If I'm reading "Being Jennifer Aniston," my first thought is going to be, "Is Jennifer Aniston attached to this?" If she's not, then it's a waste of my time to write up the script. Your friends might argue that, "Well, it could just as easily be rewritten to be "Being Katie Holmes," but that's also a problem. If you've done your job, the writing will be so specific to Jennifer Aniston that you can't just pop her out and put Katie Holmes in. Every gag and every major scene would need adjustment.
And if the script is written in a way that DOESN'T force this sort of rewrite, then one has to wonder why Jennifer Aniston is written so generically.
Pro-writers will get the benefit of the doubt on this, by the way. Though the sitcom DON'T TRUST THE B---- IN APT 23 currently features James Van Der Beek as himself, the original draft of the pilot was written for Lance Bass. Of course in that case, JVDB is more of a supporting character than the guy driving the show and the creator and producers were established Hollywood players who got the benefit of the doubt.
Also, is it okay to invoke the name of the person being parodied when writing the fictional character? Could the writer of “Galaxy Quest” describe the hero in the screenplay as a “William Shatner-type?”
Yeah, that's a fair move. There are a couple schools of thought on this, though. Some writers and readers hate this because they consider the shorthand to be a form of cheating. I can see that side of it. If the character evokes William Shatner, than his actions and attitudes should speak louder than that description. Remember, the audience needs to figure out who this guy is from what he says and does - not how the script sums him up in an aside.
I usually avoid that sort of thing when I write, by the way. I'd also suggest that if you do it, not to use that kind of description more than once.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
My KsiteTV post: "What serialized shows like The Vampire Diaries should learn from Buffy’s third season."
I've got another column over at KsiteTV today, this one discussing some things to consider when structuring an entire season's worth of shows. In the course of doing so, I examine the Klaus arc from the last season of The Vampire Diaries and see how it stacks up against one of the best seasons of genre television - the third season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
The CW premieres this week are about to send the new season of genre programming into full swing and you know what that means: season long arcs, new Big Bads, devious endgames, and angst by the barrelful. Serialized arcs are the bread-and-butter for genre TV, which is interesting because as recently as a decade ago, writers and producers were encouraged to be more episodic in their storytelling. (For those not in the know, this means that every episode was more of a standalone, with the stories being resolved in a single show with few continuing threads.) The thinking was that serialized arcs were a harder sell in syndication because they meant that the TV stations couldn’t show episodes in any random order.
Personally, I never understood why this was such a problem but at the same time, it’s hard to argue with the success that episodic shows like Law & Order, CSI and their various spinoffs had on the syndicated market. For the longest time, producers worked to find the right balance between telling a season-long story that had forward momentum through the season while also making as many of those components as standalone as possible.
Aside from the syndication argument, there’s probably a case to be made that it’s not bad on a creative level to take a break from the uber-arcs now and then. Just to name one example, as captivated as I was by the conspiracy arcs on The X-Files during their original run, in reruns I’m far more apt to settle in for a standalone rerun like “Jose Chung’s ‘From Outer Space’” or “Bad Blood.” And let’s face it – sometimes it can get a little tedious if a show spends its entire season in strict serialization. Done right, it can lead to rich storytelling. Done wrong… and there’s a sense of treading water while the writers drag out an inevitable conflict between the good guys and the bad.
Check out KsiteTV for the rest of the article!
The CW premieres this week are about to send the new season of genre programming into full swing and you know what that means: season long arcs, new Big Bads, devious endgames, and angst by the barrelful. Serialized arcs are the bread-and-butter for genre TV, which is interesting because as recently as a decade ago, writers and producers were encouraged to be more episodic in their storytelling. (For those not in the know, this means that every episode was more of a standalone, with the stories being resolved in a single show with few continuing threads.) The thinking was that serialized arcs were a harder sell in syndication because they meant that the TV stations couldn’t show episodes in any random order.
Personally, I never understood why this was such a problem but at the same time, it’s hard to argue with the success that episodic shows like Law & Order, CSI and their various spinoffs had on the syndicated market. For the longest time, producers worked to find the right balance between telling a season-long story that had forward momentum through the season while also making as many of those components as standalone as possible.
Aside from the syndication argument, there’s probably a case to be made that it’s not bad on a creative level to take a break from the uber-arcs now and then. Just to name one example, as captivated as I was by the conspiracy arcs on The X-Files during their original run, in reruns I’m far more apt to settle in for a standalone rerun like “Jose Chung’s ‘From Outer Space’” or “Bad Blood.” And let’s face it – sometimes it can get a little tedious if a show spends its entire season in strict serialization. Done right, it can lead to rich storytelling. Done wrong… and there’s a sense of treading water while the writers drag out an inevitable conflict between the good guys and the bad.
Check out KsiteTV for the rest of the article!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)