Entries Tagged 'screenplay' ↓

A woman in my screenwriting class has a script about a fairly famous historical romance, and has struggled a bit. There are several interesting scenes between the two main characters, but as we read through what seemed like the defining scene between the pair, something was missing.

I noodled on it a bit, and told her I thought what was missing was a Defining Line.

I’d never looked at it this way before now, but I think in the movies with really memorable romantic relationships have this. Not just a scene that defines the pair’s feelings for each other, but a specific, taut line withing that scene - like the point of the pin - where it is all laid bare.

Some examples. In Jerry Maguire you have Jerry’s famous line of “You complete me.” In As Good As It Gets, it is when Melvin says “You make me want to be a better man.” In Casablanca it is Rick saying “We’ll always have Paris.” In The Empire Strikes Back, it’s when Leia says she loves Han, and he replies “I know.”

In each case the line perfectly defines their relationship, and the line becomes memorable exactly because it is so perfect. It’s an incredibly difficult thing to do, but if you have a romantic climax in your movie, search out that line. Polish the scene until it comes out.

It’s too powerful to pass up, and may just make your good scene unforgettable.

I recently had the awesome experience of giving a presentation entitled “Surviving The Next Zombie Uprising” at Ignite Phoenix II. The format revolves around a 20 page presentation, with the slides automatically clicking over every 15 seconds. The five minutes feels like it goes by in a blur as you hit the main points on each slide.

After my topic was selected to be included, I had about a week and a half to put together the slides. I approached it like a screen writing project at that point, breaking down each section into “scenes”, each of which was to move the “story” along. I also tried to keep one of Jeff’s favorite mantras in mind at all times: “Enter late and leave early”. So, for instance, I did not open with “Hi, I’m here to talk to you about zombies”; instead, I chose to lead off with “Why have we had no global zombie uprising to date?” I felt that this imparted a hit-the-ground-running feeling right from the start.

After roughing out the first draft, I made two editing passes through the material and added in some “breather” slides, where I could pause. These were done as large graphics with a catchy title which I hoped would elicit a laugh from the audience allowing me to regroup my thoughts for the next sequence. Although I talked it out several times to myself, something I also do when working through dialogue in a screenplay, there was no substitute for the live experience. Reviewing the video, I definitely see several “scenes” that could have been tightened up.

Since it is a bit hard to see in the video at times, I have included the slide deck.

View the video on Blip TV.

I’ve started using a visual way to develop my screenplay, which is working out rather well. I’ve been working on a rather intriticate story that covers multiple timelines (past and present) that converge midway through the story. It was driving me bonkers trying to remember what happened ” before” something else in the narrative.

I went to Lowe’s and bought a section of white board paneling, that is basically a section from a dry ease board. I mounted it on my wall and divided it up by Acts. In the picture, you can see Act I on the top. Act II covers the end of the top section, the middle, and part of the bottom. Act III picks up the end of the third row. The space on the bottom I left for notes and scratch work.

I then picked up a bunch of colored post-its and began noting down my major scenes. The blue are the Past timeline, and the Pink are the current timeline. Orange indicates a major plot point that has to be revealed at some point along the way. The lone white post-it in the upper left is a plot issue I have to come back and work out. I’m now able to see my pacing, juggle scenes easily, and use the colors to really highlight any problems. (Yes, that’s still a work in progress)

In a more traditional narrative, I use one color for Theme scenes, another for Character scenes, and a third for Plot scenes. Under the idea that every scene should advance at least one of those three aspects of the story, I can see if I am spending too much time “talking”, or maybe not enough time since something really dynamic was happening on screen.

It’s a variation on using index cards to juggle scenes, but I prefer this for the color and the ability to see the whole picture at once. This is in my writing area, so I can look up at any time from my writing and see what’s next, or get up and move things around. I’m still refining the technique, but so far it is working out really well.

If you have any ideas what I could use to improve it, or if you use a technique similar to this for your own plot planning, I’d love to hear it!

The teenager who works behind the counter at the corner convenience store after school; the hot girl in spandex who works out at the gym in the mornings; the elderly widow that lives across the street and two houses down. What do they have in common? Well, in a zombie story, they may be the next member of the undead horde who comes to call on the living characters. As monsters go, zombies occupy an interesting niche. Functioning member of society one minute, flesh devouring automaton the next. Stripped of their humanity by some random event (another zombie, a comet’s tail particles, irradiated groundwater, etc.), they are people in appearance only.

But that very appearance of normalcy from afar can prominently figure into the story. Zombies are usually up close and in your face dangerous. From ten yards away, they just look like a person in distress. No cunning involved, no premeditated plan, no trap of their own making. Stimulus and response. Enter their space of awareness, you are now prey. When they’re not actively chasing a tasty brain snack, they usually fall into patterns of aimless wandering.

As a writer, there are a couple of interesting plays on human/zombie encounters to consider. One is the character who goes missing for some time and is then rediscovered. Were they “turned” in their absence? Do they think the other characters have “turned” in their absence? Plenty of room for the writer to craft an encounter to keep the reader engaged. Another staple is the “safe haven” that is found to be compromised. Likely, the characters have had to endure hardships to reach this place of presumed refuge. Now what are they going to do? Plenty of room for the writer to explore the emotional dynamic of the living characters.

It has been some time since my first post in this series. Although I am a fan of the genre and have embarked on the writing of a trilogy of screenplays in this space (one down, two to go), I realized that there are great gobs of zombie-centric movies and books of which I was unaware. I am but a necrophyte! (a term coined by a member of my writing group, today). I started getting caught in a research loop. So, this post is an effort to break me out of that cycle as well.

I was pretty sure The Dark Knight was going to be the best Batman movie yet and it was. I wasn’t fully prepared to be quite so blown away though. For me, Batman Begins raised the bar and The Dark Knight jumped over that bar on a souped up rocket-bike. Pretty much left the bar in favor of a low orbit cheerfully yelling ‘look ma no hands’. I was going to write a full review but what I really want to talk about is The Joker.

There were whispers and mutterings before the movie wrapped about what they were going to do with The Joker. When Heath Ledger died those whisperings grew into full blown hype. For once the hype was not only deserved, but understated the case. This is The Joker’s movie and The Joker belongs to Heath Ledger, possibly forever.

Like a legion of Batman fans, I like my Batman dark. Grim, bleak, possibly psychotic. I can go the rest of my life and never see the Batusi again, thanks. My favorite Joker story is The Killing Joke by (shock) Alan Moore. That book takes alot of time to ask why The Batman and The Joker are tied together. It’s a ghoulish Joker and a dark brutal Batman but it’s a thoughtful story, even melancholy, but it takes place at a time when the two have had a long, painful relationship.

The Dark Knight covers the same questions. What makes The Joker do the things he does? Why are he and Batman so drawn to each other? If Bats hates Joker so much why doesn’t he just kill him, moral code or no? But here this all takes place when The Batman is just getting started. He has barely begun to understand what it means to be this knight for Gotham and he’s confronted with an adversary apparently his equal.

So it’s The Joker’s origin story. But the writers go ahead and put a bit of a wrinkle there. Even though it’s an origin story there’s really no origin. We don’t know his real name. We don’t see how he got this way. His face is disfigured but his ‘joker face’ is makeup. We get the idea he probably wasn’t some loser that fell into a vat of chemicals with a red helmet on his head (the oldest Joker origin). The Joker himself plays tricks on us when he gives differing accounts of how he got his scars. He just appears, like a force of nature. Intentionally or not he has been summoned or drawn. He is (fanfare) an archetype.

We’ve seen the Trickster plenty of times in movies. Jack Sparrow is a Trickster. Bugs Bunny is too. So is Fletch. But those guys are pretty likable. Mischievous scamps. What we don’t see much is the dark side of the Trickster. Chaos gods like Loki, someone who tricked a blind man into killing his own brother. This Joker is chaos unleashed and Ledger goes at it without campiness, reservation, or fear. The dude is scary. There were several ’gags’ like the disappearing pencil trick that would be funny in a regular action flick. But this Joker is not a schizo, or a sociopath, or a criminal genius. He’s outside all of that. By making himself an archetype of justice and order The Batman summons an opposing archetype of chaos and misrule. And, oh yeah, he’s a scary mofo.

So here’s the review: go see this movie. Now.

I’ve been a deep fan of Alan Moore’s graphic novel for twenty years now, but I’m torn on the upcoming film version. It was written to be a comic, and it works brilliantly in that format. It doesn’t need to be a movie. Yet part of me would love to see these images move and breathe. I looped the spectacular trailer that came out a dozen times, both amazed and terrified. It looks great as the music video that trailer is, but can it work as a film narrative? If anything it would seem to make a better mini-series than a movie, but a movie is what we are getting. So I decided to break out my well-worn copy of the Watchmen and take a look.

WARNING - I suppose there are spoilers below, but this is a 20 year old comic. I think the statute of limitations has run out, but if you want to be surprised, then go away.

Let’s start with the length… twelve issues in a two hour movie would average out to 10 minutes an issue. In traditional 2 minute scenes, that’s 5 scenes out of every issue. Ouch. Not a good start.

We know some time will be saved across the whole story by the removal of the Black Freighter Pirate comic subplot/story. Zack Snyder has confirmed this may appear on a simultaneous release on DVD but will not be on the big screen.

Issue One - Death of the Comedian and character introductions. Not a lot to shave out of this one - we have a bunch of very interesting people to meet and the inciting incident of the story to cover - Rorschach’s investigation. I think we may see less of the Minutemen in the movie, including Hollis Mason and Dan’s relationship. I also think we’ll see much of Rorschach’s extraneous violence as he extorts the underworld left out. It’s character material, but eats up those precious minutes. I’d say we would need all 10 minutes for this issue.

Issue Two - Comedian’s funeral and recollection of his mourners. Packed with seemingly casual recollections that turn out to be major issues later. Blake’s relationship with Sally is one aspect of the Crimebusters that can’t be left out. Manhattan in Vietnam with Blake was in the trailer, but could be shrunk. Same with Dan and Blake’s Keene riot patrols. But he can’t leave out Blake’s visit to Moloch. I also hope they keep the Pagliacci joke - personal favorite. Again, going to need a full 10 mins for this one.

Issue Three - Manhattan leaves Earth, Dan and Laurie reconnect. Finally we have an issue where material can be cut out. Doc still has to flee to Mars, but there’s a lot of side story with the street vendor and that crazy doomsday sign carrier that can shrink way down. Should be able to make up time here.

Issue Four - Doc’s reminiscence on Mars. I love this issue, the texture, the ideas of how Doc views time, and the insight into this fascinating character. But really this would be very hard to convey on the screen in depth, and doesn’t move the story forward. It’s mostly backstory. I think this issue will get cut heavily.

Issue Five - Rorschach captured, Dan is frustrated, Veidt’s assassination attempt. A few major plot points, but I think they can compress in a bit. I think this issue will show a number of factual plot points and spare the depth. Again with the street vendor - I think his story will also be greatly reduced in the movie, along with the Pirate ship story and the comic-reading kid. This will probably clock in around the full 10 mins.

Issue Six - What kind of dork does every issue like this? Me. Now this issue, while backstory, is to me the heart of the series. Not only is Rorschach scrawling his own design on the morally blank face of Armageddon, but so is the entire rest of the cast. Every one of them had their own conception of the world broken, and reformed it in their own image. Moral choice in the face of anarchy. This is also a black, bleak issue, and the kidnapping details are going to really turn people away of not done well. This issue will likely eat up more than it’s 10 minutes, and claim some of the ground given up by a few previous issues.

Issue Seven - Dan and Laurie, and some info on the Institute. Dan and Laurie are the emotional heart to this tale, so I expect their relationship to get some coverage. Just not sure how much. I think Snyder will have to forsake some character work for plot, and this is where we may see that hit. Easily take the full 10 mins, and maybe more.

Issue Eight - Jailbreak. I think the jailbreak will get time, as will Rorschach’s escapade’s inside the jail. We will need to see the people working on the island, too. Again, I expect Hollis to get sidelined, and his death seems like a likely item to cut. Lots of action here, and since we’ve already seen Nightowl doing a Spartan slow-mo kick in the trailer, I think this will get the full treatment. Full 10 minutes on this one, plus some.

Issue Nine - Revelations on Mars. This would be gorgeous on the screen, and has Laurie big character revelation. This one will eat up time, especially if we get the full tour of Mars. I wonder if Snyder will try to keep all the bloodstained-smiley logo references, including the crash on the Argyre Planitia. I also wonder if we’ll see a lot of voiceover from Laurie to tie her story together. This issue just can’t shrink that much. Going to be more than 10 minutes.

Issue Ten - Rorschach and Nightowl close in on Veidt. Lots of small bits of information here, like the delivery of the journal and more Pirate story. I think this will be compressed to mainly show the investigation and the fate of the people working on the island. Can make up some time here.

Issue Eleven - A button is pushed, Veidt’s backstory and the big reveal. I think we’ll see reference back to the Crimebuster’s meeting and tidbits on Veidt, but not all the details. His own decision to scrawl his morality on the world. But the pacing here I think can be cut down to the 10 minutes.

Issue Twelve - Downtown Exposition City. One worry I have with this adaptation overall is the need for voiceover. In a movie you normally want to Show, not Tell. With the crazy way Moore plays with time and intercut threads, I think a voiceover will almost be necessary. Then the wrap up, hopefully with Seymour and his fateful selection. This will be the bulk of the third act and push well more than 10 minutes - maybe 15+.

Could this clock in as a 2 1/2 hour movie like Dark Knight? May not be a choice to preserve both the story and the characters. But even giving another 2-3 mins per issue may not be enough. I think we’re looking at a very long movie (which studios and theaters hate) or the cutting knife will go deep.

All of this said, I’m still going to see it the day it opens. As a fan I like to ponder topics like this, but am also willing to let movies prove themselves. For fun Google up fan rants about Lord of the Rings before it opened, or Daniel Craig as James Bond. I have my concerns, but wish Snyder and Co. nothing but the best in making this work.

Shuffling and shambling their way onto the screen and into popular culture, the zombie has gained widespread appeal as a horror film and book icon. From their first appearance in Night of the Living Dead to the frightening (and sometimes frightful) abundance of subsequent offerings, the undead horde relentlessly propel themselves onward, seeking fresh brains in the form of new fans. I’ve been a fan of this sub-genre for quite a while and for many years I portrayed a zombie at Halloween (stage blood gel-caps and a rubber foot are wonderful props for scaring the trick-or-treaters).

One of the prominent features of most of these stories is the fact that, if left unchecked, the zombie menace will quickly outpace the remaining human population. There isn’t time to just “wait it out” while conventional society quickly degrades. The living must band together and put aside their differences, creating internal side conflicts in addition to the primary core conflict of human vs. zombie.

In this series, I shall be examining various aspects of the zombie motif. First up, my personal favorite zombie incarnations and a few that I feel could have just been left in the ground.

Favorite movie:

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

The great-grand-daddy of zombie films. Set the tone for one branch of the zombie pantheon: The dead rise and if you are dead or become dead through whatever means, you will join their ranks. The iconic shuffling gait, blank stare and mindless pursuit of prey all got their start here.

Least favorite movie:

The Return of the Living Dead (1985)

Too campy in my opinion, this one foregoes any real horror moments for a big splash of humor. While John A. Russo got the rights to use the name “Living Dead” after the split, Romero’s line of sequels (Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead) retained more of the spirit of the original.

Favorite book:

The Walking Dead by Robert Kirkman (writer)

This continuing series of comics explores a present-day world where a zombie outbreak quickly gained a critical mass. Thus, the story centers more on the ability of humans to adapt and survive in a post-apocalyptic setting, while still dealing with the considerable amounts of emotional baggage they brought along for the trip.

Least favorite book:

Cell: A Novel by Stephen King

Perhaps that this was given a zombie story attribution was its greatest downfall for me. I expected the horror master’s take on a classic scenario, but instead found the “rules” hard to figure out. In my opinion, it’s more akin to The Matrix than zombie lore.

I’ve been thinking about genre lately. Specifically, what the hell is it, where did it come from, and why is something based on formula and convention so hard to define? I saw Wanted recently and was blown away. Good performances from the cast, great fight scenes and action sequences. It was heavy on special effects but they didn’t distract from the movie, they were all there for a reason other than looking cool. It was long but didn’t drag and I would reccomend it in a heartbeat. But it really wasn’t all that original. It was straight Action/Adventure genre work that followed all the right beats. So what makes Wanted so awesome and, say Bulletproof Monk, so crappy? They have similar stories: young loser discovers hidden talents bordering on the supernatural. Training and testing occur and secret destiny is fulfilled. Same genre, wildly differnt degrees of success.

Everyone goes into a movie with expectations based on the genre. But what if the genre’s wrong? Mr. and Mrs. Smith wasn’t really an action movie it was a romantic comedy. More submachine guns than most romcoms, but still. If you get thrown you’ll end up not liking the movie even though it’s good. You’ll feel tricked. I guess if a movie is a contract between the storytellers and the audience, then genre is where the fine print is.

1. Are you following conventions or plastering on cliches? Pirates of the Carribean vs. Cutthroat Island. Pirates had all the conventions of the old swashbuclers but written like real characters. People with things to say and ambitions to pursue. Dialog that sounded like people actually talking to each other. Cutthroat Island just dressed everybody up as pirates and figured the story would just sort itself out. I remember vaguely there was a map and a treasure but that’s not cliche, right? But Pirates had a tresure, you say! Oh wait, it was a cursed treasure that you found with a magic compass so you could put the treasure back. That might qualify as a fresh angle on the old conventions. Plus, the main character in Cutthroat Island was Captain Morgan. Really?

2. Are you being true to the story and the genre? I am Legend is a pretty damn good book. I am Legend was a pretty damn good movie- right up to the point where they ruined it with the (mostly) happy ending. There are plenty of sci-fi/near future genre flicks with that one chance for hope at the end. Equilibrium’s a good one. So is Children of Men. I am Legend is not that kind of story. It’s exactly the opposite of that story. Especially that part about hope at the end. No hope. Unless you’re one of the new vampire-people. Admittedly this one is often out of the writer’s control but this is a particularly grievous offense. It ruins literally everything the whole rest of the movie was about. Including the title. The title!

3. Are you trying too hard to avoid genre cliche? If you’re writing a screenplay about vampires, you don’t have to tell us what kills them, or what doesn’t kill them. Don’t we have enough short-hand now that we can figure out which kind of bloodsuckers are in your movie? Sunlight doesn’t kill ‘em and they’re brooding aristocrats? Just show them doing that and we’ll get it. Mindless predators with no control over their unholy thirst? Yeah, we’ll get that too. Will a stake do it or do we have to cut the whole head off? We don’t need someone to explain it to the new guy on the Vampire Eradication Squad and bore the rest of us while he’s at it. Want an unreal example of letting the conventions explain themselves? 3:10 to Yuma. That movie drops you right into the story without one bit of prologue. It’s not needed because everybody knows they’re here for a Western, damnit. Pretty much all the characters are there and we all know who they are so let’s let ‘em do their thing! Yee-ha.

4. Can you mix genre? If you can’t, that’s okay, just don’t do it. From Dusk til Dawn was a cool idea for a movie. Robert Rodriguez is very skilled at the crime genre. His style is almost a genre of it’s own. Let’s call it Tex-Mex/crime/fantasy. After watching Planet Terror I think we can also say Rodriguez is good at the over the top monster movie with old-school Tom Savini effects. Those genres don’t really go together. Well, I think they could, but they didn’t really land in this one. The vampire effects were at odds with the tone from the rest of the movie. The perfectly paced slow-build to the massacre in the bar comes to a screeching halt so we can figure out what these vampires are and how we can kill them (see number three). As soon as those doors closed Rodriguez shouldn’t have let us take a breath until they opened again at dawn. Now if you can mix genre, baby you go for it. Blade Runner: sci-fi or film noir? Shaun of the Dead: comedy or horror/zombie? High Noon: western or social commentary?

It’s enough to give you a migraine. Genre, sub-genre, sub-sub-genre, mixed genre. Some of the distinctions can get pretty fine. I think this definitely hits the screenwriter more than the novelist. A screenplay is generally written with a specific genre in mind before it’s even started. A novelist has more leeway and a good deal more opportunity to explain any genre sidetracks to get his reader onboard. Probably best not to think about it too much. Story is king. A good story should stay good whether it’s on a river barge or a spaceship.

When I heard there was going to be a new Indiana Jones movie many moons ago, I groaned. I was not happy with what Mr. Lucas did with the new Star Wars movies, and I just couldn’t see a new Indy movie being anything other than a train wreck.

I wanted it to be good the way you want a friend’s new romantic interest to work out. You just pull for it, no matter how many doubts you have. But when the topic came up I would groan, roll my eyes, cross my fingers, and recite a list of reasons why it just wasn’t a good idea.

When the first trailer went up on You Tube, I braced myself and clicked the link. New images that seemed familiar, a familiar fedora, then… “dun duh dun dun DUN DUH DUN” and I was GONE. Hooked. Sold. John Williams and his damned themes and I was a kid again with a bucket of popcorn in my lap watching Raiders on the big screen, grinning like a fool. Same grin watching that trailer. INDY WAS BACK! WOO HOO!

Characters like Indiana Jones transcend their makers. You can’t write someone like Indy, I can’t, nobody can. They come off the page and become part of the collective experience, larger and deeper and more real than any one scribe could make. Indy’s name wasn’t in the first movie title, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, but he’s headlined every one since and a TV show to boot. That’s why so many people (including moi) had such heartburn over the final Star Wars series. Lucas didn’t fully own those characters anymore, except in a courtroom. They are OURS. Like Indiana Jones, Dread Pirate Roberts, Rick Blaine, Charles Foster Kane, E.T., and others.

I can’t sit in the theater and watch Indiana Jones on the screen and get the slightest idea how to write a character that grand, but I’ll keep trying. In the meantime, I’ll just curl up with my popcorn and enjoy.

The five part series was originally concieved as a single post. I thought I would be able to make a few pithy comments on each movie and have a nice tight list like you see on cracked.com. It became obvious pretty quickly that I wasn’t going to be able to do that. Maybe I lack the merciless discipline to keep the comments that concise. Even expanding each movie to one post I feel barely scratched the surface. What can I say, I tend toward the rambling rant rather than the short, razored comment.

But that’s part of the point. Movies (good ones) should work on different levels and the really good ones work on a bunch of levels all at once. They need to entertain and engage. They need to make you feel but it’s nice if they make you think. Whatever story they tell has to conform to a rather rigid three act structure. They are a visual medium but are generally worthless without good writing.

With the advent of DVDs it’s much easier to get an in-depth look into how movies are made. Not just special effects how-to’s but the whys of storytelling. Why a writer chose a characters manner of speaking, why a costume looks the way it does, why the director showed an actor’s face or hid it. Learn what really goes into telling a story with film. It’s a bit of a trade-off: the more you know about what goes into a good flick, the less patient you are with crap. But you gain a deeper appreciation of the good ones and really blown away by the great ones.

If you have it in your head to write your own screenplays knowing how hard it is and seeing a couple good ones can be intimidating. Just ride that bull cowboy. Dont’ think about it too much. Screenplay and The Screenwriter’s Workbook by Syd Field are plain-English-just-do-the-work books that should teach you enough to try one. The Writer’s Journey by Christopher Vogler distills and presents Joseph Campbell’s hero and myth structures through the filter of film-making. Or maybe it talks about movies through the filter of Campbell, myth is hard to pin down.

Give it a try and have fun with it. I’ve only written one screenplay myself (I wrote it for ScriptFrenzy last year). If, like me, you’re most comfortable in narrative prose you’ll find the different form exciting and interesting. At worst, your script will suck. If the story’s good you can always use it as an ‘outline’ for your next novel.