Tuesday Talkback - which shows have improved since their pilots?

It was reported earlier today that the ABC sitcom The Neighbors has secured a full-season order.  Not to sound like a dick, but that was not a headline I expected to see after viewing the pilot earlier this year.  I also have to admit that I didn't anticipate the success of Revolution, which I had pegged as this year's The Event.

When watching a pilot critically, it's important to be able to tell the difference between a weak pilot that has immense potential for growth and a weak pilot that is so misguided that it would be nearly impossible for a series to recover.  This year, it seemed like there were a lot of shows that fell into the latter category.  I don't want to name names, but most shows of this type were easily distinguished by the unflinching and often amusingly brutal reviews that the critics posted.

I've only kept up with a few new shows this season, so I have to admit I'm curious if anyone stuck with any of the iffier shows and was rewarded with improvement.  Did The Neighbors find a way to make the premise play beyond one joke?

666 Park Avenue was another show where the pilot didn't blow me away, but of the new fall shows, it seemed to have some of the strongest potential for improvement, provided the writing staff that was hired figured out a way to develop genuine tension and build to unexpected payoffs.  There were the building blocks of a better show there, but the story presented in the pilot was a little too tepid for my tastes.

I also wrote off Guys With Kids because it too seemed to be built around a one-joke premise that was already well-worn territory years ago.  Did they find their creative groove or is it just a case of the show being placed in the right timeslot?

So let me know what shows have gotten better since their pilot, and if possible, explain why you think the changes they made facilitated this.

Read MCCARTHY on the Black List site! And an update on the other submissions

Well, I made it through the first 25 scripts that were submitted to my post on Black List 3.0.  I have to admit, the response was far beyond anything I expected.  I wasn't sure 25 people would even take me up on the offer, let alone the 60+ requests currently sitting in the comment thread of the earlier post.

I want to say right off the bat that I was somewhat impressed with the overall level of writing that I saw in those 25 submissions.  I've read for a contest or two and I've got plenty of experience with amateur-level submissions, so a part of me fully expected to be screaming "Oh dear God! Why did I sign up for this!" well before I got through ten submissions.  As a group, you guys are far more promising than most of the people submitting to contests and I saw blessedly little of the horrible newbie mistakes that drive me to drink.

Upon reflection, that makes sense.  The people responding fastest to my offer were more likely to be regular readers of my blog.  Thus, it's a good sign that what I've been bitching about for four years has really sunk in with you people.  For starters, I don't think I recall a single gratuitous mention of a woman's cleavage.

Of the 25, I think there might have only been two - perhaps three - scripts where I knew within a few pages that this was going to be a pass.  I expected at least a third of the scripts would have me stopping after a few pages to ask, "wait, what did I just read?"  So good work in not embarrassing yourselves.

I promised everyone I'd give them ten pages.  More than half of you had me intrigued enough to keep going further, just to see if your execution showed signs of living up to your concept, or just to see if you could sustain some of the positives of your script.  I'd say at least fifteen of you got me to page 20 and at least 8 of you had me reading past p. 35.  I considered announcing which scripts had me reading deeper into them, but I realized that probably wouldn't be helpful.  In some cases, it was the concept that kept me going, only for me to realize by p. 60 that things were being developed too conventionally or too slowly.  In other cases, a script started with a very strong first act, only to meander in the second act long enough that I knew it wouldn't be a high consider.  So I didn't want to leave anyone with the impression "You had me until p. 44, but p. 45 is where you fucked up, so fix that."

This is because I wasn't just looking for "okay" writing, or "decent" writing - I was looking for strong writing.  More than that - I was looking for a strong script.  After all, giving a good review to the script is like throwing up a flare on that specific idea.  Those of you guys with stronger concepts obviously had a distinct advantage here - especially those of you who communicated those concepts well in your logline.  Generic or familiar-sounding ideas had me less enthused from the start, but there were plenty of loglines that had me thinking "I can't wait to see how they develop THAT!"  (Not coincidentally, those were the writers who often got 30 pages or so to make their case.)

The flip side to this is that there were a number of concepts that faced an uphill battle with me for one reason or another.  In some cases, the issue was that the story was just too mundane or "small."  In other cases, the factor was a genre I didn't have a particular affinity for.  For instance, I'm not a huge Western fan - but at least two Westerns got me to page 25 or further.  I bring this up to underline that just because I didn't respond to a particualar idea, it doesn't follow that everyone will be as apathetic.

I was reading these submissions specifically with an eye to finding scripts that would rate at 8, 9 or 10.  I wanted to find the real undiscovered gems that could stand up to scrutiny once passed into professional hands.  I'm optimistic that there are a lot of 6s in those submissions, and 6s that could easily make it to a rating of 7 or even 8 with some rewriting.

Also, one writer let me know via Twitter that he'd seen a marked uptick in traffic to his script and even heard from an agent after submitting his submission in the comment thread last week.  He seemed to believe that there was a direct connection between the two, and while I'd love to crow about that, I've not seen many instances of reps following up on material promoted on my site before.  (Having said that, traffic was WAY up on Friday.)  But if anyone else has something like that happen, please let us know, okay?

But what you really want to know is did I find that undiscovered gem?  Yes - sort of.  MCCARTHY by Justin Kremer was the clear winner in this showdown of the first 25 scripts.  In some ways I'm surprised and some ways I'm not.  This script was spotlit in an email the Black List sent out last week to all their professional users, following a very positive evaluation from one of the Black List readers.  Also, the Black List algorithm predicted that I'd rate this script as an 8.3, which is more or less accurate.

Beyond that, I'm not big on political scripts.  Despite COLLEGE REPUBLICANS being #1 on the Black List two years ago, I wasn't really a fan of it.  So it's not like I'm predisposed to the material - plus I had to look at COLLEGE REPUBLICANS through the marketability lens, and political material is kind of a powder keg these days.  My feeling is Repulican viewers would claim that the film was an unfair, propeganda-driven hatchet job on Karl Rove (oh, the irony!) while Democratic viewers would take issue with the fact that it doesn't depict Rove as half the sub-human pond scum we know him to be.

(And if you take issue with that characterization, look up what the man did to John McCain in the 2000 primary election.  It was a vile, evil act of race-bating that not only relied on the worst elements of his party, but in fact fed those fires to make those elements a dominating force in that party.  I've always loved Cindy McCain for saying, "No, I'd stab him in the front," after being asked if she ever would be tempted to stab Rove in the back.)

But a bio-pic of noted asshole and Senator Joe McCarthy is a different prospect, because nearly everyone with half a brain agrees that McCarthy's anti-Communist witch hunts were an horrific abuse of power and a dark time in our nation's history.  (Those lacking that half a brain can be discovered here.) But there's something fascinating about exploring a person who more or less branded himself as a larger-than-life defender of freedom while basically making his name synonymous with the most egregious and repugnant forms of political grandstanding.

This is not only a well-written, well-paced script - it has what every script needs: a fantastic villain.  One scene in particular stands out, about 30 pages in, McCarthy's grandstanding has already begun to make waves.  A campaigning Dwight Eisenhower is so disgusted by his actions, he doesn't even want to be photographed with him.  Instead, the Presidential candidate requests a private meeting with the Senator, during which he essentially says "The fuck?!" and "No, seriously... the fuck?!"  He basically tells McCarthy that he doesn't agree with what the Senator stands for and isn't scared to say that in public.  He demands McCarthy apologize to the people he's hurt and McCarthy's response can pretty much be translated as, "Eh, bite me" and "Suck it, Ike."

So McCarthy has to introduce Eisenhower at a rally and he does just that and only that.  No puffed up speech.  No "I endorse this guy." Pretty much "Here he is.  He's running for President."  And then the amazing thing happens.  Eisenhower comes out ... and basically endorses everything that the slimy Senator stands for.

That set of scenes alone ensured that I was gonna stick around to see Jackass Joe run out of town on a rail when the the wheel of fortune eventually turned against him.

Those of you with Black List access can find McCarthy here.

I'll gradually work my way through the other submissions.  November's a busy month for me and I know I won't be able to blow through 25 scripts as fast as I did before.  I'm still optimistic I can find one really good script that hasn't yet been spot-lit by Black List readers.  I recognize that to pull that off, I'm going to need to move fast though.  I'll keep you guys updated as I go.

I will read your script on the Black List

Okay, I'm about to propose an experiment - and like some experiments there's a chance this could fail.

Several of you have scripts up on the Black List and as we've seen, it can help a script immensely if it gets a positive review.  The problem is that it's hard to get people to notice your script before a paid review is complete.  Also, there's no guarantee that the paid review will be a positive one.  However, in clairfying the way the review metric works, Franklin Leonard revealed something very interesting over at Done Deal Pro:

"Any script that gets a particularly high rating from any individual reviewer can expect that script to get spotlighted to our industry professional members. Practically, if you write a script that gets a 1 from one reader and a 9 from another reader, that script will still be included as part of our email spotlighting recent scripts that got a strong review. Presumably people who are interested in your genre and logline will download it, read it, and rate it, which will then result in your overall rating changing over time based on those members thoughts on your script."

In practical terms, this means the paid reader could HATE your script, but if someone else really likes it, you could still get an endorsement.  So here's my offer to you....

I will read the first ten pages of ANY script linked to in the comment of this post.  If I think the script has promise beyond those ten pages, I will continue reading until I feel my interest wane.  This means that if I get to the end, presumably I'll have a positive impression of your script and I will rate it as such.

The conditions:

1) the link to your script's page on the Black List MUST be in the comments.  Do not email me. Do not Tweet me.  I will ONLY read scripts publicly pointed out here.  Feel free to include a logline or any other information.

2) I will offer no comments on any of the scripts I didn't complete.  Don't ask me what you did wrong. Don't ask me for feedback.  I doubt I'll have time to respond to everyone, and so to be fair, I will respond to no one.

3) I will be holding all scripts to the same standards as the material I read for my job.  There's no such thing as "good for an amateur" on this scale.  Scripts will be judged according to how they measure up to professional submissions.

4) This offer is good until noon on Tuesday, October 30.  If I get a huge response, it's going to take some time for me to work through these scripts.  I'll do my best to be prompt, but know that it could take a week or more if a lot of you submit.

5) If I really like your script I will spotlight it in a post on my blog, but know that it would probably have to rate a 9 or a 10 for me to do that.

Other readers and industry pros with Black List access, I encourage you to join in the fun and check out some of these submissions.  Let's see if we can help someone get discovered!

Addendum: Okay, seeing how I got about 8 submissions in a half-hour, I think I'll need to moderate expectations.  I'll promise to make the first 25 submissions a priority.  Anything that comes in after that, I'll make an effort, but know that they'll probably be a lesser priority unless a logline really catches my eye.

The most amazing saga of slimy producers I have heard

Remember back when I talked about parasite PINOs - Producers In Name Only - and how their attachment to your script can often cause more headaches than benefits?  Well, I recently came across an amazing series of blog posts from writer Doug Richardson. 

As Doug introduces the story:

I’ve written about theft before. Both stories and ideas nicked by scumbag producers without consequence. What follows is an epic tale. All true. With multiple endings that, to this day, still leave me and others gob-smacked.

Set aside some time and read this.  It's an amusing, at times barely believable story.  But it's also a cautionary tale. Some of you may have already read it.  For those that haven't, I do not DARE even think of ruining all the twists and turns in this epic.

The Smoking Gun - part 1
The Smoking Gun - part 2
The Smoking Gun - part 3
The Smoking Gun - part 4

Black List questions and strategy

Jeff asked the following question in the comments of yesterday's Black List post:

I uploaded my screenplay on Oct. 15 and just got my first rating today - a respectable 7 (not great but still just above the community average rating). And while I'm completely satisfied with the feedback I received (you can read it here if you're interested: https://blcklst.com/members/script/3899), I can't help but think, "what now?" I mean, is a rating of 7 high enough to get noticed on the BL? Should I get a second opinion and shell out $50 for another review? Is there anything else I can do to be more proactive about getting my script read by the right people? 

I think it's a little early to make a call if a rating of 7 is high enough to get noticed or not. I know that I've set my preferences to alert me about anything good that gets a 7 or higher, but 8 might be the cutoff for other people. Given what I understand about the site, you can see the number of hits to the script. I'd let it ride for a little and see what kind of traffic you get. At the very least, I urge against making any knee jerk reactions. It's still early in the site's life, so you might want give it some time and let everyone feel out how the site is most effective for them.

Also, I saw that someone else's screenplay got a rating of 9, but in the 'Prospects' section of their review, the reader made the comment that while the script was extremely well done, "it may have difficulty finding a large commercial audience were it to be produced." In the 'Prospects' section of my script's review, the reader said "The script is well done and can find a commercial audience..." So what do you think is more attractive to industry professionals: a script with a high rating but lower commercial appeal, or a script with an average rating but with more commercial potential? Thanks in advance for any response to my questions.

I think that the answer to your question is going to vary depending upon the individual user. It's not going to be a "one size fits all" answer. I will say that if someone gets a lot of 9s and 10s, there's a good chance that they're doing a LOT right. If their only "sin" is that they wrote something that's not marketable, someone might be inclined to give at least the first 10 pages a read and see what it's like.

There's also different degrees of "not marketable," so again, the severity of that detriment might vary script-to-script. Adult dramas and action movies with women in the lead are often considered less marketable, but I could see someone taking a chance on an exemplary one of them. But a Biblical epic, or a three hour movie about Pompeii? Yeah, that's aggressively unmarketable to the degree that the quality of the writing probably won't help as much.

As for writing something of average quality but with commercial appeal - if you've got a brilliant concept, maybe you could get away with it. Just don't forget that Hollywood is filled with scripts that are "average." So if you've got a low concept idea and a so-so write-up, it might not be enough that you're writing in a marketable genre.

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?

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?