I've been going through my Screenwriter's Marketplace book and I've been finding a ton of producers and agencies to send my query letters out to. They say that only a small fraction of queries get replies, and of those, even fewer with a positive response so I think by sending out a crapload of them, I'm upping my chances.
Of course that's lottery mentality, it's really important to have a strong logline and query letter. In my last post I put up the logline for NO REFUGE and thanks to the help of an anonymous commentator that has a great deal of insight and advice regarding loglines it has since morphed into this:
"After accidentally killing his best friend, a small-town popular teen makes a deal with the cops to set up his troublemaking friends. This leads to him uncovering a dark secret: the cops have been appeasing a group of cannibals with the town's undesirables"
Which tells way more of what the story is actually about. I think my problem was that I was basing my loglines off of blurbs when you press the info button on your cable box as opposed to a detailed, albeit brief, line about what the work is exactly about.
Of course this is still a work in progress logline and I'm always open to new suggestions. It's funny having to sum up 117 pages into two sentences and having them make sense, but I think I've finally got it here. I think.
Regardless, my list is up to over forty places and I'm not even halfway through the alphabet, so that's a good sign. These are all places that are interested in new people and horror features. I have a separate list going for my romantic comedy, but I think I'll just focus on NO REFUGE for now. Hopefully if one place likes it they'll be interested in my other work as well. I may even have a chance to break out my noir thriller PERFECT ENDING, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.
I've also been receiving e-mails from readers and that's really motivating. It's nice to know people are in the same situation as me. I'm always up for reading people's screenplays and having mine read, so please shoot me an e-mail if you'd like to talk, my address is on the side.
I'll post again once the letters start flying - and I'll also be posting some of my thought process as I work on the outline for my new screenplay: a traditional ghost story, sans gore. Should be fun.
Showing posts with label script. Show all posts
Showing posts with label script. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Back from Vacation
It's been a little over a month since my last update but with finals, Christmas and a vacation it's been pretty hectic... so here I am. I've been tossing around ideas for what story I want to start working on next, I think I may go towards my non-graphic horror story, it has a fun premise I think I can get a lot out of.
As for "Blood in the Trees" I finally settled on the new title of "No Refuge" - it is shorter, which is good, and easier to say, which is also good. I changed a reference of the woods about 10 pages into the story to say "wildlife refuge" and there it is. I think it works and frankly I'm sick of trying new titles with this damn thing.
I've also been working on some query letters for this and my rom-com, they're coming out fairly decently and I'll be using Script PIMP's forwarding service contact thingy to see if i can get it out there to some producers and agencies. The horror film would be cheap to make so there are a lot of options out there, hopefully someone will like it. I'd much rather just go and make it myself, but hey, you have to start somewhere. My rom-com I'm just holding back on a little, doing some tweaks here and there. It seems that every woman that has read it has really liked it whereas every guy (all two of them that I could con into it) said "I hate it but it's well written," par for the course I suppose. As I said before in reference to the rom-com, it's a little formulaic as most of them are but with that genre you already know where you're going to go, it's the getting there that's fun.
Aside from all that I've just been watching a bunch of random movies to see what's out there since I have the streaming Netflix now, my recent views were "Teeth," "Dead & Breakfast" and "The Charge of the Light Brigade" which were stupid, silly and good in that order. I also watched the first two seasons of "30 Rock" which was hilarious... good stuff.
I'll update once I figure out a good query letter and get it out there, persistence is key.
Oh! And a bunch of people commenting really solidified my "no contests" standpoint now, good looking out. It's always great when someone that knows things a lot better than I do gives me some advice, it's motivating. Thanks!
As for "Blood in the Trees" I finally settled on the new title of "No Refuge" - it is shorter, which is good, and easier to say, which is also good. I changed a reference of the woods about 10 pages into the story to say "wildlife refuge" and there it is. I think it works and frankly I'm sick of trying new titles with this damn thing.
I've also been working on some query letters for this and my rom-com, they're coming out fairly decently and I'll be using Script PIMP's forwarding service contact thingy to see if i can get it out there to some producers and agencies. The horror film would be cheap to make so there are a lot of options out there, hopefully someone will like it. I'd much rather just go and make it myself, but hey, you have to start somewhere. My rom-com I'm just holding back on a little, doing some tweaks here and there. It seems that every woman that has read it has really liked it whereas every guy (all two of them that I could con into it) said "I hate it but it's well written," par for the course I suppose. As I said before in reference to the rom-com, it's a little formulaic as most of them are but with that genre you already know where you're going to go, it's the getting there that's fun.
Aside from all that I've just been watching a bunch of random movies to see what's out there since I have the streaming Netflix now, my recent views were "Teeth," "Dead & Breakfast" and "The Charge of the Light Brigade" which were stupid, silly and good in that order. I also watched the first two seasons of "30 Rock" which was hilarious... good stuff.
I'll update once I figure out a good query letter and get it out there, persistence is key.
Oh! And a bunch of people commenting really solidified my "no contests" standpoint now, good looking out. It's always great when someone that knows things a lot better than I do gives me some advice, it's motivating. Thanks!
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Standard Characters in a Romantic Comedy
In every romantic comedy there is certain criteria that has to be met. Obviously it has to be funny and even more obvious, it has to be romantic. When a character is being romantic they can't be funny (unless we're laughing at them) and when they're being funny they can't really be romantic. Being the suave doofus that I am my attempts at romance are funny but that's not really what I mean here.
There are mainstays that work their way into every romantic comedy because of these needs and I thought I'd outline them here, since I'm done with my first draft now, to ensure that I have covered everything that needs to be covered. So, we have:
The Protagonist: Male, female, robot, whatever. Generally the protagonist can go two ways; they can be so unsure of themselves that they have trouble starting a relationship and can easily screw it up (Anything without Hugh Grant) OR they can be so sure of themselves that their pride screws things up for them (Anything with Hugh Grant). No matter how you approach the situation, they're going to screw up a relationship at some point in the story. Whether they're dumped in the beginning, dumped in the middle, or dumped at the end their shortcomings are going to bite them in the ass. So, naturally, in order for the romantic comedy to come to completion we must have them fix their problems, win their heart's desire, and that's that. Or you could leave the theater feeling disappointed as in The Break Up.
The Interest: This is who our protagonist desires. They're perfect (for them) in every way and you want to see them together, you know you're going to see them together... but HOW are they going to get together? Will our protagonist overcome their problems so that their interest can see the real them and fall in love with them? Probably. Even so, the goal of the romantic comedy is not the getting there, it's HOW you get there.
The Best Friend(s): Our protagonist and our interest both (usually) have best friends and they are generally the comic relief. They are able to point out what's wrong with life, provide some advice that may or may not work and to generally take the pratfalls when things go wrong. The protagonist gets the blame, they get the funny, of course. These characters are generally scene-stealers because they're very entertaining, they're there to lighten the mood and really bring out the comedy in a romantic comedy. Look at Jack Black in High Fidelity. I was highly invested in John Cusack fixing his life but every time Jack was on screen he stole my attention, BUT, when he was not there I wasn't pining for him to come back. They have to be entertaining but not overly likable, that's your protagonist's job (even is they are a jerk). One best friend is fine, but it's fun to see the best friend get to know the interest - for better or for worse.
The Plan/Problem: Our protagonist's plan or problem (the foil of the story, our inciting incident as well as our climax decision) is in itself a character. It drives our protagonist along and forces their decisions and moves the story along. If the protagonist was perfect and had what they wanted, we wouldn't have a story, simple as that. So our protagonist must fix what is wrong with their life (if it's a plan, usually a way to happiness/money, if it's a problem, they realize at the end they were Hugh Grant all along).
The Antagonist: Now I haven't mentioned an antagonist directly because in a romantic comedy there usually isn't a REAL antagonist. The "sort-of" antagonist is usually someone that's either interested in the interest as well, already with the interest, was with the interest at some point, or steals the interest away - but they're not out to DIRECTLY get our protagonist, they're just kind of in the way. They don't have to be stopped/killed/destroyed/etc. merely pushed to the side by our protagonist coming through on their plan/solving their problem. Look at Tim Robbins in High Fidelity. He was living with John Cusack's interest, and John was pissed about this (and acted out in his fantasies) but by the end of the story John has solved his problem and Tim Robbins goes on his merry way - presumably home to Susan Sarandon.
Everyone Else: The rest of the characters in the story are people either helping along or detracting our protagonist with their plan/problem solving but are generally there for a laugh. You don't need a lot of subplots going on in a romantic comedy or you end up with Love Actually. While that was a good movie and entertaining, it seemed more like a lot of half-stories than a complete story. While Hugh Grant's was the most developed I was the most interested in the "Christmas All Around Me' guy.
So, that's pretty much everyone in a romantic comedy. I can go down this and check off each part and it's fully covered, so I'm in good shape (in my own eyes anyway). I've passed around the script a little to get some opinions and I'll be entering it in the Bluecat contest on Monday.
Fun fun!
There are mainstays that work their way into every romantic comedy because of these needs and I thought I'd outline them here, since I'm done with my first draft now, to ensure that I have covered everything that needs to be covered. So, we have:
The Protagonist: Male, female, robot, whatever. Generally the protagonist can go two ways; they can be so unsure of themselves that they have trouble starting a relationship and can easily screw it up (Anything without Hugh Grant) OR they can be so sure of themselves that their pride screws things up for them (Anything with Hugh Grant). No matter how you approach the situation, they're going to screw up a relationship at some point in the story. Whether they're dumped in the beginning, dumped in the middle, or dumped at the end their shortcomings are going to bite them in the ass. So, naturally, in order for the romantic comedy to come to completion we must have them fix their problems, win their heart's desire, and that's that. Or you could leave the theater feeling disappointed as in The Break Up.
The Interest: This is who our protagonist desires. They're perfect (for them) in every way and you want to see them together, you know you're going to see them together... but HOW are they going to get together? Will our protagonist overcome their problems so that their interest can see the real them and fall in love with them? Probably. Even so, the goal of the romantic comedy is not the getting there, it's HOW you get there.
The Best Friend(s): Our protagonist and our interest both (usually) have best friends and they are generally the comic relief. They are able to point out what's wrong with life, provide some advice that may or may not work and to generally take the pratfalls when things go wrong. The protagonist gets the blame, they get the funny, of course. These characters are generally scene-stealers because they're very entertaining, they're there to lighten the mood and really bring out the comedy in a romantic comedy. Look at Jack Black in High Fidelity. I was highly invested in John Cusack fixing his life but every time Jack was on screen he stole my attention, BUT, when he was not there I wasn't pining for him to come back. They have to be entertaining but not overly likable, that's your protagonist's job (even is they are a jerk). One best friend is fine, but it's fun to see the best friend get to know the interest - for better or for worse.
The Plan/Problem: Our protagonist's plan or problem (the foil of the story, our inciting incident as well as our climax decision) is in itself a character. It drives our protagonist along and forces their decisions and moves the story along. If the protagonist was perfect and had what they wanted, we wouldn't have a story, simple as that. So our protagonist must fix what is wrong with their life (if it's a plan, usually a way to happiness/money, if it's a problem, they realize at the end they were Hugh Grant all along).
The Antagonist: Now I haven't mentioned an antagonist directly because in a romantic comedy there usually isn't a REAL antagonist. The "sort-of" antagonist is usually someone that's either interested in the interest as well, already with the interest, was with the interest at some point, or steals the interest away - but they're not out to DIRECTLY get our protagonist, they're just kind of in the way. They don't have to be stopped/killed/destroyed/etc. merely pushed to the side by our protagonist coming through on their plan/solving their problem. Look at Tim Robbins in High Fidelity. He was living with John Cusack's interest, and John was pissed about this (and acted out in his fantasies) but by the end of the story John has solved his problem and Tim Robbins goes on his merry way - presumably home to Susan Sarandon.
Everyone Else: The rest of the characters in the story are people either helping along or detracting our protagonist with their plan/problem solving but are generally there for a laugh. You don't need a lot of subplots going on in a romantic comedy or you end up with Love Actually. While that was a good movie and entertaining, it seemed more like a lot of half-stories than a complete story. While Hugh Grant's was the most developed I was the most interested in the "Christmas All Around Me' guy.
So, that's pretty much everyone in a romantic comedy. I can go down this and check off each part and it's fully covered, so I'm in good shape (in my own eyes anyway). I've passed around the script a little to get some opinions and I'll be entering it in the Bluecat contest on Monday.
Fun fun!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Rom-Com Draft #1 Complete
I don't know why but I found my romantic comedy so much faster to write than my other scripts - it just felt fast. That's probably a good thing, meaning I did not get stumped anywhere or try to figure out what happens next (regardless of having an outline).
In fact I think I'll skip the usual development service and submit it to the Blucat Screenplay Contest, which has an early-bird special on December 1st. They provide notes back by January for the early-birds so I can see where I stand on the screenplay and hopefully do well in a contest. The Bluecat contest seems to lean towards emotional or touchy-feely stories, so hopefully a rom-com can squeeze in there somewhere.
As for Blood in the Trees I'll be resubmitting to the development service as soon as I have some extra cash, which may or may not be next week depending on if I go shopping for Christmas presents or not. Decisions, decisions, eh?
Just a quick update today, I'll post some news when it happens.
In fact I think I'll skip the usual development service and submit it to the Blucat Screenplay Contest, which has an early-bird special on December 1st. They provide notes back by January for the early-birds so I can see where I stand on the screenplay and hopefully do well in a contest. The Bluecat contest seems to lean towards emotional or touchy-feely stories, so hopefully a rom-com can squeeze in there somewhere.
As for Blood in the Trees I'll be resubmitting to the development service as soon as I have some extra cash, which may or may not be next week depending on if I go shopping for Christmas presents or not. Decisions, decisions, eh?
Just a quick update today, I'll post some news when it happens.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Hotel Guignol and Other Matters
I haven't been doing much writing lately which of course is the reason behind the lack of updates. I had LASIK eye surgery last month (it's amazing, I highly recommend it) so staring at a large white page on the computer kind of irked me. I'm doing great now though, I've just been lazy and in that antsy stage of waiting to hear back from contests.
I've heard back from a few, but it was earlier drafts of Behind Suburbia so they didn't do as well as I would have liked, but I'm more looking forward to the contests which received the later drafts... which means more waiting anyway. I've been plodding along in my comedy, but I'm not all that sure how I feel about it thus far, but I think I'll finish it as planned and then give it a good evaluation from there. If I have to toss it and start over, so be it, but there are enough things I like that I can probably save a great deal.
In other news, I received an odd e-mail from a website called "Hotel Guignol" which asked for a 5-10 minute short screenplay taking place entirely in a hotel room, the more messed up and weird the better. I wrote up a 10 page supernatural horror story, did a few drafts of it and submitted it, I called it "The Best Room in the House" so hopefully they like it. They contacted me though Inktip, so that was pretty cool. I looked at their website and they claim they're receiving 300 submissions a day (wow) so it'll take a few months before I hear back anything.
Other than that, just kind of trucking along. I'll get back into the swing of things soon, and considering I star grad school in a little over a month I'll definitely be making more time for writing since for some reason I write the most when I have something else I should be doing. When I become a writer full time I'm going to have to have some looming, unrelated deadline hovering over me to keep me motivated.
Ah, also, one of my readers (I didn't know I had those) contacted me over AIM and told me I needed to move out to California. To be honest, I'd love to get out there but there are too many things holding me here in New Jersey to up and go. Maybe in a couple years I can go, but for at least the next two I'm pretty much stuck. I'm also not entirely sure what I'd do when I got out there, I have no contacts now so that wouldn't work... I would have to resort to assaulting people outside studios with my scripts which of course is a big no-no. Regardless, I think I'd like the sunshine. Maybe a coastal change is in order, but for now, I'll bide my time here and keep plugging away.
I'll write an update once I get motivated/hear some news.
I've heard back from a few, but it was earlier drafts of Behind Suburbia so they didn't do as well as I would have liked, but I'm more looking forward to the contests which received the later drafts... which means more waiting anyway. I've been plodding along in my comedy, but I'm not all that sure how I feel about it thus far, but I think I'll finish it as planned and then give it a good evaluation from there. If I have to toss it and start over, so be it, but there are enough things I like that I can probably save a great deal.
In other news, I received an odd e-mail from a website called "Hotel Guignol" which asked for a 5-10 minute short screenplay taking place entirely in a hotel room, the more messed up and weird the better. I wrote up a 10 page supernatural horror story, did a few drafts of it and submitted it, I called it "The Best Room in the House" so hopefully they like it. They contacted me though Inktip, so that was pretty cool. I looked at their website and they claim they're receiving 300 submissions a day (wow) so it'll take a few months before I hear back anything.
Other than that, just kind of trucking along. I'll get back into the swing of things soon, and considering I star grad school in a little over a month I'll definitely be making more time for writing since for some reason I write the most when I have something else I should be doing. When I become a writer full time I'm going to have to have some looming, unrelated deadline hovering over me to keep me motivated.
Ah, also, one of my readers (I didn't know I had those) contacted me over AIM and told me I needed to move out to California. To be honest, I'd love to get out there but there are too many things holding me here in New Jersey to up and go. Maybe in a couple years I can go, but for at least the next two I'm pretty much stuck. I'm also not entirely sure what I'd do when I got out there, I have no contacts now so that wouldn't work... I would have to resort to assaulting people outside studios with my scripts which of course is a big no-no. Regardless, I think I'd like the sunshine. Maybe a coastal change is in order, but for now, I'll bide my time here and keep plugging away.
I'll write an update once I get motivated/hear some news.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Finding the Point of Comedy: Expectations, Sub-Genres and Silly Crap
"What's funny?" is one of the hardest questions to answer simply because it's different for everyone. What one person may find hilarious another may find just silly, or worse, stupid. For instance I find fecal humor to be too gross to be funny. My prime example is Stifler's scene from American Wedding... it was just a little too over the top for me -- but most people had the intended "Awwww, ha ha ha" reaction, uncomfortable laughter indicating "I'm glad that's not me!" Another prime example is that men love The Three Stooges... women don't. I know there's the exception to the rule at all times, but I speak in general terms since movies are for general audiences. When you write for too specific an audience you're going to fall flat.
Now the fun thing is that you can take just about any premise and make it a comedy. Comedy, traditionally speaking, is making fun of (or satirizing) an established convention. That's why there are so many sub-genres; if you take the expected results and flip them over to something absurd, you've made a funny.
Example: A bank robber is trying to open the safe in the back room of the bank. He sets up the plastic explosive and primes the charge, with a countdown of ten seconds so he can get to safety... only his sleeve is caught! In a serious movie, he would explode and be dead. In a comedy, it would blow up and depending on the sub-genre would:
A) Blow him into the police station
B) Leave a sooty mess on him
C) Not explode at all
D) Blow up and not open the safe
E) Blow up and not open the safe... but the safe wasn't locked in the first place
F) He frees himself, the safe blows open only to reveal another safe inside
or my personal favorite
G) Kill him anyway, but the janitor finds the open safe and has a decision to make
And so on and so forth depending on whatever mood the writer was in that day. This is of course a simple example, but that's the essence of comedy. Take what you except to happen and run the other way with it.
I just finished writing the outline to my comedy spec. I've written my characters into some humorous situations but it's the approach to the humorous situations that I need to narrow down before first draft writing commences. There's no point in switching comedy styles halfway through, you've established an action/reaction standard and the audience expects that prevail. I also personally hate going to a comedy and winding up in another genre entirely ("Man of the Year" anyone?) that just sets the movie up for failure because of false expectations, but that's a discussion for another day.
There are several schools of comedy before it comes to the sub-genre, they are: Fantasy, Observational, Irony, Satire, Slapstick and Tragicomedy. They are very broad so sub-genres came about to further differentiate between the schools themselves, and most comedies can be lumped into a few sub-genres, but for the most part it's easy to differentiate.
So let's look at our sub-genres: Black (not African-American, but that's one too), Criminal, Mocumentary, Farce, Horror, Family (for, Domestic is about), War, Musical, Parody/Spoof, Romantic, Satire, School, Slapstick, Sports, Teen and Urban. I don't think that's all of them... but that's all I can think of off-hand.
All sub-genres have built in audiences. If you want women to come to your film, make it a romantic comedy. If you want teenagers, make it a teen or school comedy (or just put in nudity). If you want to appeal to weirdos like me, you make a black comedy. Again, I'm speaking in generalities, but these hold true regardless.
Now, all comedies are satirizing or parodying some established convention (be it an actual institution or a belief) so those are umbrella terms, but it is in the way the humor is presented that would narrow that comedy into the sub-genre of satire (Zoolander, Anchorman, Idiocracy, Dr. Strangelove, Dogma) or parody (Blazing Saddles, Walk Hard, Scary/Epic/Super Movie). I hate lumping in Blazing Saddles with Epic Movie, but it's essentially the same thing, just one is presented way better than the other.
To put that into specific film terms: the protagonist is in conflict with the antagonist with unintended consequences, whether those consequences are surprising, ironic, weird or whatever is up to the writer.
Comedies winning the academy award are almost unheard of, the only ones doing so being It Happened One Night (1934), You Can't Take It With You (1938), Going My Way (1944), Tom Jones (1963), The Sting (1973), and Annie Hall (1977). There were a few hybrid comedies that won (and these were all comedies with dramatic elements, "sophisticated" comedies) but these were the only comedies that fell directly in the "comedy" genre umbrella. Recently though, comedies have been up for Best Picture, the first time in quite awhile, so that really opens the door to making sophisticated comedies once again.
That's where I'm trying to come in. I'm not talking about a high-brow masterpiece or anything, merely a comedy that also makes you think, examine life in general, and question the conventions of thought that society has given us. Sounds like heady stuff, sure, but my first goal is to make you laugh, then later, think about why you were laughing.
If I had to narrow down the sub-genres of my comedy I really would not be able to do it. This may be going against my aforementioned audience expectation caveat but the establishment of the tone and theme of the film in the first five minutes will alleviate that problem. As long as I maintain the same feel for the entire film, that is what's important and that's what comedies need to do.
A good comedy does this: in Annie Hall Woody Allen came right out and said that love sucks but you do it anyway, and he spent the rest of the movie showing us why, and it was great. American Pie let is know that it was going to be about the awkwardness of sex in the first two minutes and spent the rest of the movie showing us how, and it was funny. I could go on with all the comedies that I love, but I think I've made my point.
Then again I may have just rambled on, but I feel more focused anyway. On to the treatment!
Now the fun thing is that you can take just about any premise and make it a comedy. Comedy, traditionally speaking, is making fun of (or satirizing) an established convention. That's why there are so many sub-genres; if you take the expected results and flip them over to something absurd, you've made a funny.
Example: A bank robber is trying to open the safe in the back room of the bank. He sets up the plastic explosive and primes the charge, with a countdown of ten seconds so he can get to safety... only his sleeve is caught! In a serious movie, he would explode and be dead. In a comedy, it would blow up and depending on the sub-genre would:
A) Blow him into the police station
B) Leave a sooty mess on him
C) Not explode at all
D) Blow up and not open the safe
E) Blow up and not open the safe... but the safe wasn't locked in the first place
F) He frees himself, the safe blows open only to reveal another safe inside
or my personal favorite
G) Kill him anyway, but the janitor finds the open safe and has a decision to make
And so on and so forth depending on whatever mood the writer was in that day. This is of course a simple example, but that's the essence of comedy. Take what you except to happen and run the other way with it.
I just finished writing the outline to my comedy spec. I've written my characters into some humorous situations but it's the approach to the humorous situations that I need to narrow down before first draft writing commences. There's no point in switching comedy styles halfway through, you've established an action/reaction standard and the audience expects that prevail. I also personally hate going to a comedy and winding up in another genre entirely ("Man of the Year" anyone?) that just sets the movie up for failure because of false expectations, but that's a discussion for another day.
There are several schools of comedy before it comes to the sub-genre, they are: Fantasy, Observational, Irony, Satire, Slapstick and Tragicomedy. They are very broad so sub-genres came about to further differentiate between the schools themselves, and most comedies can be lumped into a few sub-genres, but for the most part it's easy to differentiate.
So let's look at our sub-genres: Black (not African-American, but that's one too), Criminal, Mocumentary, Farce, Horror, Family (for, Domestic is about), War, Musical, Parody/Spoof, Romantic, Satire, School, Slapstick, Sports, Teen and Urban. I don't think that's all of them... but that's all I can think of off-hand.
All sub-genres have built in audiences. If you want women to come to your film, make it a romantic comedy. If you want teenagers, make it a teen or school comedy (or just put in nudity). If you want to appeal to weirdos like me, you make a black comedy. Again, I'm speaking in generalities, but these hold true regardless.
Now, all comedies are satirizing or parodying some established convention (be it an actual institution or a belief) so those are umbrella terms, but it is in the way the humor is presented that would narrow that comedy into the sub-genre of satire (Zoolander, Anchorman, Idiocracy, Dr. Strangelove, Dogma) or parody (Blazing Saddles, Walk Hard, Scary/Epic/Super Movie). I hate lumping in Blazing Saddles with Epic Movie, but it's essentially the same thing, just one is presented way better than the other.
To put that into specific film terms: the protagonist is in conflict with the antagonist with unintended consequences, whether those consequences are surprising, ironic, weird or whatever is up to the writer.
Comedies winning the academy award are almost unheard of, the only ones doing so being It Happened One Night (1934), You Can't Take It With You (1938), Going My Way (1944), Tom Jones (1963), The Sting (1973), and Annie Hall (1977). There were a few hybrid comedies that won (and these were all comedies with dramatic elements, "sophisticated" comedies) but these were the only comedies that fell directly in the "comedy" genre umbrella. Recently though, comedies have been up for Best Picture, the first time in quite awhile, so that really opens the door to making sophisticated comedies once again.
That's where I'm trying to come in. I'm not talking about a high-brow masterpiece or anything, merely a comedy that also makes you think, examine life in general, and question the conventions of thought that society has given us. Sounds like heady stuff, sure, but my first goal is to make you laugh, then later, think about why you were laughing.
If I had to narrow down the sub-genres of my comedy I really would not be able to do it. This may be going against my aforementioned audience expectation caveat but the establishment of the tone and theme of the film in the first five minutes will alleviate that problem. As long as I maintain the same feel for the entire film, that is what's important and that's what comedies need to do.
A good comedy does this: in Annie Hall Woody Allen came right out and said that love sucks but you do it anyway, and he spent the rest of the movie showing us why, and it was great. American Pie let is know that it was going to be about the awkwardness of sex in the first two minutes and spent the rest of the movie showing us how, and it was funny. I could go on with all the comedies that I love, but I think I've made my point.
Then again I may have just rambled on, but I feel more focused anyway. On to the treatment!
Thursday, February 28, 2008
"Behind Suburbia"
Well, it's finally finished and has a title. It's been a few months, one of which was sitting around coming up with terrible titles, but it's done. Today I registered "Behind Suburbia" with the WGAw and the Library of Congress, meaning that the script is now ready for the world.
I came up with this title because of its dual meaning, one of which becomes apparent after the reading (or hopefully someday viewing). The literal sense of course is that the story takes place behind suburbia, so it works regardless. A few people don't like it, a few people do, but I really like it and I think it's a strong title. I remember the struggle I had coming up with the title for Vengeance, which ultimately became "perfect ending" ... it's just not easy for me for some reason.
At any rate, tomorrow I'll be submitting the screenplay to Script P.I.M.P. for their development service. Hopefully they like it and can provide me with a little insight into some improvements. Either that or they're going to hate it and I'm going to feel bad and have to make major changes. Maybe change the killer could be an escaped hippo in heat, that always sells well in the mid-west.
At any rate, if anyone is interested in reading "Behind Suburbia" and hopefully offering to option it, just shoot me an e-mail and I'll send a handy-dandy pdf of the script. I'm pretty confident in the story I tell as well as the characters I developed. I tried to go for the difficult goal of having a full character arc told within a slasher movie and I think I've done just that. I've had about fifteen people read the script and they all liked it, so that's a good sign. Then again maybe they're just humoring me... but we'll see next week. Stay tuned!
I came up with this title because of its dual meaning, one of which becomes apparent after the reading (or hopefully someday viewing). The literal sense of course is that the story takes place behind suburbia, so it works regardless. A few people don't like it, a few people do, but I really like it and I think it's a strong title. I remember the struggle I had coming up with the title for Vengeance, which ultimately became "perfect ending" ... it's just not easy for me for some reason.
At any rate, tomorrow I'll be submitting the screenplay to Script P.I.M.P. for their development service. Hopefully they like it and can provide me with a little insight into some improvements. Either that or they're going to hate it and I'm going to feel bad and have to make major changes. Maybe change the killer could be an escaped hippo in heat, that always sells well in the mid-west.
At any rate, if anyone is interested in reading "Behind Suburbia" and hopefully offering to option it, just shoot me an e-mail and I'll send a handy-dandy pdf of the script. I'm pretty confident in the story I tell as well as the characters I developed. I tried to go for the difficult goal of having a full character arc told within a slasher movie and I think I've done just that. I've had about fifteen people read the script and they all liked it, so that's a good sign. Then again maybe they're just humoring me... but we'll see next week. Stay tuned!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Horror Movie Dialo-- Did you hear that? I'll be right back
The Scream trilogy turned the slasher/horror genre on its ear by being a slasher movie that was aware of how stupid everyone sounded in slasher films. Aside from reciting the rules, etc. it had a line that really stuck out to me, said by the killer to Randy (Jamie Kennedy), "Never say "who's there?" Don't you watch scary movies? It's a death wish. You might as well come out to investigate a strange noise or something."
In the Pre-Scream days the slasher genre had pretty formulaic dialogue. Before the killing started everyone would have typical vapid teenager dialogue that really didn't reveal anything about their characters or go anywhere, then, once the killing started it would degrade into a series of "No!" "Ahhh!" "Please don't!" and "Die you son of a bitch!" or very close facsimile. Nobody was allowed to know what was really happening until it was too late, they never ran away correctly and frankly, you were kind of glad to see them go. The Post-Scream environment brings about an entirely different type of slasher film. Of course pickings have been slim since then but it added the idea that characters could fight back and defend themselves for the whole movie (not just the end), can run away and stay away, can get the police involved early and can be fully aware of what has happened, what is happening, and what needs to be done. There are even adults involved!
Scream had characters with back stories, complex interpersonal relationships, changing relationships, moods, intelligence, ingenuity and semi-rational behavior. No longer was a character subject to summary execution, they had a fighting chance! Of course most of the cast got killed off anyway simply because it's cheaper to higher different people in the sequel, but hey, they had a fighting chance. Scream also introduced a vulnerable killer but of course that's been addressed already.
The slasher movie today, in my opinion, needs a healthy mix of the pre and post Scream dialogue conventions. Characters shouldn't be blissfully unaware that something is wrong while they hump things but they also shouldn't ban together with Uzis to take out the killer. There has to be a happy medium in there between the two. One has to be aware that each slasher franchise does what it does and does it right, it's up to the writer of a new film (such as myself) to find the true voice of the characters, to give them their personality.
Dimensionality has been discussed previously so we can focus primarily on what the characters are talking about. Normally in a horror film it's sex, sex related things, bad jokes, juvenile pranks... basically anything that goes in one ear and out the other. There are no profound discussions in horror films simply because you can't kill a character that an audience perceives as intelligent as them (or god forbid more intelligent) because in that situation, they would know EXACTLY what to do. So it becomes almost commonplace that any character that has a well developed personality can't die. Scream of course, once again, threw this out the window with the death of Randy and the rest of the crew (in the first film anyway), but I'm speaking in general terms.
So, it has become my own personal mission to avoid the pitfalls of generic horror movie dialogue. I'm not going to have characters investigate anything, they aren't going to be pretty faces with empty heads nor are they going to go look for anyone else. Of course now that I've gotten rid of every conventional thing for them to talk about they are going to have actual conversations. They're not going to discuss existentialism in Bolshevik Russia or anything, but they can't simply talk about screwing either. Some sort of happy medium... which is going to be the hard part of the story. My treatment is finished and the story is perfectly worked out, now I have to start the actual writing and for the first time consider what these characters are going to say.
That's what first drafts are for though, and there's always the mainstay of reading a line out loud to see if it sounds like something a person would say. I also have to watch out for all the characters sounding the same. They're all an extension of myself in some way, it's just a matter or having them draw from different things to make them truly unique. Then again I'm going to be killing them off after a half hour... and does anyone REALLY care what happens to them? I want them to, as I've mentioned in the past. All of my blog entries regarding this topic have been building up to this as I am now starting the first draft of the screenplay.
Of course now that I've covered all the aspects of the slasher film (well, most of them. Some. I think) I'll have to think of something new to talk about next week. I'm sure I can come up with something Slasher related though. See you all then.
In the Pre-Scream days the slasher genre had pretty formulaic dialogue. Before the killing started everyone would have typical vapid teenager dialogue that really didn't reveal anything about their characters or go anywhere, then, once the killing started it would degrade into a series of "No!" "Ahhh!" "Please don't!" and "Die you son of a bitch!" or very close facsimile. Nobody was allowed to know what was really happening until it was too late, they never ran away correctly and frankly, you were kind of glad to see them go. The Post-Scream environment brings about an entirely different type of slasher film. Of course pickings have been slim since then but it added the idea that characters could fight back and defend themselves for the whole movie (not just the end), can run away and stay away, can get the police involved early and can be fully aware of what has happened, what is happening, and what needs to be done. There are even adults involved!
Scream had characters with back stories, complex interpersonal relationships, changing relationships, moods, intelligence, ingenuity and semi-rational behavior. No longer was a character subject to summary execution, they had a fighting chance! Of course most of the cast got killed off anyway simply because it's cheaper to higher different people in the sequel, but hey, they had a fighting chance. Scream also introduced a vulnerable killer but of course that's been addressed already.
The slasher movie today, in my opinion, needs a healthy mix of the pre and post Scream dialogue conventions. Characters shouldn't be blissfully unaware that something is wrong while they hump things but they also shouldn't ban together with Uzis to take out the killer. There has to be a happy medium in there between the two. One has to be aware that each slasher franchise does what it does and does it right, it's up to the writer of a new film (such as myself) to find the true voice of the characters, to give them their personality.
Dimensionality has been discussed previously so we can focus primarily on what the characters are talking about. Normally in a horror film it's sex, sex related things, bad jokes, juvenile pranks... basically anything that goes in one ear and out the other. There are no profound discussions in horror films simply because you can't kill a character that an audience perceives as intelligent as them (or god forbid more intelligent) because in that situation, they would know EXACTLY what to do. So it becomes almost commonplace that any character that has a well developed personality can't die. Scream of course, once again, threw this out the window with the death of Randy and the rest of the crew (in the first film anyway), but I'm speaking in general terms.
So, it has become my own personal mission to avoid the pitfalls of generic horror movie dialogue. I'm not going to have characters investigate anything, they aren't going to be pretty faces with empty heads nor are they going to go look for anyone else. Of course now that I've gotten rid of every conventional thing for them to talk about they are going to have actual conversations. They're not going to discuss existentialism in Bolshevik Russia or anything, but they can't simply talk about screwing either. Some sort of happy medium... which is going to be the hard part of the story. My treatment is finished and the story is perfectly worked out, now I have to start the actual writing and for the first time consider what these characters are going to say.
That's what first drafts are for though, and there's always the mainstay of reading a line out loud to see if it sounds like something a person would say. I also have to watch out for all the characters sounding the same. They're all an extension of myself in some way, it's just a matter or having them draw from different things to make them truly unique. Then again I'm going to be killing them off after a half hour... and does anyone REALLY care what happens to them? I want them to, as I've mentioned in the past. All of my blog entries regarding this topic have been building up to this as I am now starting the first draft of the screenplay.
Of course now that I've covered all the aspects of the slasher film (well, most of them. Some. I think) I'll have to think of something new to talk about next week. I'm sure I can come up with something Slasher related though. See you all then.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Ending the Madness: Chair Jumper or Warm and Fuzzy?
I've finished my outline and as I've been plodding along through the treatment I've been giving some thought to the ending. The slasher movie and of course the horror genre as a whole has surprisingly little variation to the endings. In this case though, that's okay, it's how you get TO the ending that really matters, but of course you don't want to leave people feeling cheated at the end. Here are the most popular ones:
1. "The Chair Jumper"
The chair jumper is the granddaddy of all horror/slasher endings. Just when you think everything is going to be okay... it's not! It's one last over the top scare, which is either followed by a very short concluding scene or the credits. This is the ending that usually leaves the audience talking the most about the movie, mainly because the chair jumper is so completely unexpected that it really gets you.
My personal favorite chair jumper is the ending to Friday the 13th. I know I talk about that series a lot, but come on, it's completely derivative, formulaic and there are ten of them to work with. I'm talking about the original though. Poor Alice Hardy (Adrienne King) has just woken up from the night from hell and the police are pulling up to the lake. One of the policemen spots her and waves when suddenly... Jason jumps out of the lake and pulls her down! Holy crap! Traditionally when the cops come it's over, you're safe. The police give off an air of security so this chair jumper was completely out of the blue and was fantastic.
A few other chair jumpers worth mentioning... the end of The Evil Dead, Phantasm, Friday the 13th Part uh... the one where Mrs. Vorhees jumps out of the lake... and uh... that's about it. That I can think of anyway, here's your chance to leave me some comments.
2. "It's Not Over!"
The 'it's not over' ending implies one thing: sequel. This is a fairly popular ending for the slasher/horror genre simply because horror movies are fairly cheap to produce so they're almost guaranteed to turn a nice profit... which means they need more. Lots more. The endings are intentionally ambiguous, or in some cases, clearly left wide open. I'm talking "if there isn't a sequel I'm going to be pissed" open. Endings such as these are the easiest to do, just remove the last scene and cut to the credits and just like that, you're ready for a sequel. Throw the "alternate ending" on a special edition DVD that comes out six months after the regular one and you've truly gone Hollywood.
My favorite example of this is the ending to Halloween. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) comes to the rescue of Laurie Strode (you know who plays her), shoots Michael Myers three thousand times, knocking him out a window... only to have him disappear. Oh no! Is he going to come after Laurie? How did he survive that? What's going to happen now? Was Dr. Loomis shooting blanks? So many credits and only two lines before the credits roll. Thankfully the sequel picked up eight seconds after the original left off. Okay, make that two favorite examples. The end of A Nightmare on Elm Street. Somehow all of Nancy's (Heather Langenkamp) friends have mysteriously returned to life, her mother is fine and it's off to another day of school... when Freddy locks the car and pulls Nancy's mother through the little window on the door. Not so much as a chair jumper as a "it's not over" simply because it seemed a bit fishy from the start of the scene. Very fun though, very fun.
A few more examples of the "It's not over!" are: Evil Dead II, The Ring, Hellraiser, Jason X... uh... geez. I'm off my game today. There are a lot more, I know it, I just need a nap.
3. "How Ironic!"
This is not irony in the literal sense so much as just silly. They're usually ambiguous and are coupled with the "It's not over!" ending because of the situation the lead character ends up in right before the credits roll.
The best example of this is the ending of Evil Dead II. Ash just went through so much crap that it's not even worth going into and then he somehow gets sucked into the portal that was supposed to save him. Briefly mentioned earlier was a passage from the lost pages of the Necrinomicon stating that someone came from the future and was supposed to have contained the evil then... and he's even wearing a blue shirt, just like Ash! Needless to say he ends up back there and goes from being almost killed to being a savior only because of his shotgun. The camera pans back and it's the page from the book! Poor Ash.
I think the only other movies with endings such as these skirt out of the horror genre and go for a little dramatic irony as well. This ending could also be considered the "surprise!" ending as well, but people will find it "ironic." Anything done by M. Night Shaymalan does that. It's the "Hey, you just sat for two hours for the film school 101 ending." It is though, in the first year one of the first assignments is to do a five minute "surprise" ending. Mr. Shaymalan simply expanding all his ideas to two hours. Well, I don't mean to go off on a tangent but... stop doing that.
4. "Whew, we're okay..."
Sometimes the prerequisite of the "Chair jumper" as well as the "How ironic" this ending has the survivors happy that they survived whatever it was trying to kill them. If this is the actual ending it usually has them walking off into the distance with their arms around each other or the cops showing up... or both. Kind of sappy, kind of relieving, but watch out for the bait and switch. Sometimes you think it's okay... but it's not.
A good example of this is every movie where you don't have another type of ending. Friday the 13th II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, A Nightmare on Elm Street III, IV, V, VI, Child's Play I, II, III, Hellraiser II... mostly sequels. Sequels do this simply because they're not sure if the profit margin will be big enough to do another one so they don't want to leave fans disappointed if they can't muster the cash to make another.
I'm glad the characters are okay and all, but this ending is kind of boring. It's how most movies in general end. Why not have a character say, "Whew, I'm glad that's over with" and have them fall and break their neck. Now that's an ending.
So which do I prefer?
I'm a chair-jumper/it's not over fan myself. One last good scare coupled with the idea that no matter how hard they tried the survivors couldn't stop whatever was trying to kill them. They're a lot of fun and I think they leave the audience with the best impression of the movie due to the fact that when they finally start to relax you play with their emotions one last time. If done right, it's awesome. If cheap and stupid (Scary Movie, though that was intentional) it'll just make you laugh, but you'll remember it. Now back to the treatment and time to work on that ending.
Wait, there's more!
Oh, as an aside I've finally found a new title for "Vengeance" ... it will now be called "perfect ending" (Thanks to help of my perpetual editor SE) The title is worlds apart from Vengeance, which now that I think about it sounds more like an American Gladiator that a movie. The title also has a lot more meaning to the story itself and if you want to know more, send me an e-mail and I'll send the script over.
I've also finally gotten a little extra cash and am going to submit to the Hollywood Lit Sales development service. According to their FAQ, only 5% move on so I've already braced myself for a "pass" rating but it's the constructive criticism that I'm after (though I think it should garner at least a "consider" rating, but I may be biased. I like it. A few other bloggers that have read it liked it.... my mom liked it...). So in four or five weeks I'll talk about how that went. In the meantime, I'll be focusing on my horror movie. See you all next week.
1. "The Chair Jumper"
The chair jumper is the granddaddy of all horror/slasher endings. Just when you think everything is going to be okay... it's not! It's one last over the top scare, which is either followed by a very short concluding scene or the credits. This is the ending that usually leaves the audience talking the most about the movie, mainly because the chair jumper is so completely unexpected that it really gets you.
My personal favorite chair jumper is the ending to Friday the 13th. I know I talk about that series a lot, but come on, it's completely derivative, formulaic and there are ten of them to work with. I'm talking about the original though. Poor Alice Hardy (Adrienne King) has just woken up from the night from hell and the police are pulling up to the lake. One of the policemen spots her and waves when suddenly... Jason jumps out of the lake and pulls her down! Holy crap! Traditionally when the cops come it's over, you're safe. The police give off an air of security so this chair jumper was completely out of the blue and was fantastic.
A few other chair jumpers worth mentioning... the end of The Evil Dead, Phantasm, Friday the 13th Part uh... the one where Mrs. Vorhees jumps out of the lake... and uh... that's about it. That I can think of anyway, here's your chance to leave me some comments.
2. "It's Not Over!"
The 'it's not over' ending implies one thing: sequel. This is a fairly popular ending for the slasher/horror genre simply because horror movies are fairly cheap to produce so they're almost guaranteed to turn a nice profit... which means they need more. Lots more. The endings are intentionally ambiguous, or in some cases, clearly left wide open. I'm talking "if there isn't a sequel I'm going to be pissed" open. Endings such as these are the easiest to do, just remove the last scene and cut to the credits and just like that, you're ready for a sequel. Throw the "alternate ending" on a special edition DVD that comes out six months after the regular one and you've truly gone Hollywood.
My favorite example of this is the ending to Halloween. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) comes to the rescue of Laurie Strode (you know who plays her), shoots Michael Myers three thousand times, knocking him out a window... only to have him disappear. Oh no! Is he going to come after Laurie? How did he survive that? What's going to happen now? Was Dr. Loomis shooting blanks? So many credits and only two lines before the credits roll. Thankfully the sequel picked up eight seconds after the original left off. Okay, make that two favorite examples. The end of A Nightmare on Elm Street. Somehow all of Nancy's (Heather Langenkamp) friends have mysteriously returned to life, her mother is fine and it's off to another day of school... when Freddy locks the car and pulls Nancy's mother through the little window on the door. Not so much as a chair jumper as a "it's not over" simply because it seemed a bit fishy from the start of the scene. Very fun though, very fun.
A few more examples of the "It's not over!" are: Evil Dead II, The Ring, Hellraiser, Jason X... uh... geez. I'm off my game today. There are a lot more, I know it, I just need a nap.
3. "How Ironic!"
This is not irony in the literal sense so much as just silly. They're usually ambiguous and are coupled with the "It's not over!" ending because of the situation the lead character ends up in right before the credits roll.
The best example of this is the ending of Evil Dead II. Ash just went through so much crap that it's not even worth going into and then he somehow gets sucked into the portal that was supposed to save him. Briefly mentioned earlier was a passage from the lost pages of the Necrinomicon stating that someone came from the future and was supposed to have contained the evil then... and he's even wearing a blue shirt, just like Ash! Needless to say he ends up back there and goes from being almost killed to being a savior only because of his shotgun. The camera pans back and it's the page from the book! Poor Ash.
I think the only other movies with endings such as these skirt out of the horror genre and go for a little dramatic irony as well. This ending could also be considered the "surprise!" ending as well, but people will find it "ironic." Anything done by M. Night Shaymalan does that. It's the "Hey, you just sat for two hours for the film school 101 ending." It is though, in the first year one of the first assignments is to do a five minute "surprise" ending. Mr. Shaymalan simply expanding all his ideas to two hours. Well, I don't mean to go off on a tangent but... stop doing that.
4. "Whew, we're okay..."
Sometimes the prerequisite of the "Chair jumper" as well as the "How ironic" this ending has the survivors happy that they survived whatever it was trying to kill them. If this is the actual ending it usually has them walking off into the distance with their arms around each other or the cops showing up... or both. Kind of sappy, kind of relieving, but watch out for the bait and switch. Sometimes you think it's okay... but it's not.
A good example of this is every movie where you don't have another type of ending. Friday the 13th II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, A Nightmare on Elm Street III, IV, V, VI, Child's Play I, II, III, Hellraiser II... mostly sequels. Sequels do this simply because they're not sure if the profit margin will be big enough to do another one so they don't want to leave fans disappointed if they can't muster the cash to make another.
I'm glad the characters are okay and all, but this ending is kind of boring. It's how most movies in general end. Why not have a character say, "Whew, I'm glad that's over with" and have them fall and break their neck. Now that's an ending.
So which do I prefer?
I'm a chair-jumper/it's not over fan myself. One last good scare coupled with the idea that no matter how hard they tried the survivors couldn't stop whatever was trying to kill them. They're a lot of fun and I think they leave the audience with the best impression of the movie due to the fact that when they finally start to relax you play with their emotions one last time. If done right, it's awesome. If cheap and stupid (Scary Movie, though that was intentional) it'll just make you laugh, but you'll remember it. Now back to the treatment and time to work on that ending.
Wait, there's more!
Oh, as an aside I've finally found a new title for "Vengeance" ... it will now be called "perfect ending" (Thanks to help of my perpetual editor SE) The title is worlds apart from Vengeance, which now that I think about it sounds more like an American Gladiator that a movie. The title also has a lot more meaning to the story itself and if you want to know more, send me an e-mail and I'll send the script over.
I've also finally gotten a little extra cash and am going to submit to the Hollywood Lit Sales development service. According to their FAQ, only 5% move on so I've already braced myself for a "pass" rating but it's the constructive criticism that I'm after (though I think it should garner at least a "consider" rating, but I may be biased. I like it. A few other bloggers that have read it liked it.... my mom liked it...). So in four or five weeks I'll talk about how that went. In the meantime, I'll be focusing on my horror movie. See you all next week.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Get to the Killing Already!
As I work on my outline I've had one question in particular that has been really bothering me: How long before the killing starts?
How long can I develop my characters before I start to bore my audience? In order to create a bond between the average moviegoer and the characters in the story I have to have a certain amount of development. There has to be something to latch onto and in order to do that I need a little bit of time. If I wanted one-dimensional throwaway characters there would be no problem, in fact I could have a group of thirty people, kill one every three minutes and there is a feature length film... but that's not what I want.
The flaw in the majority of horror films is that the characters are entirely one-dimensional. They are a means to an end, which in the case of a horror movie is to up the body count. They have one small purpose to their character, with no reason why, no back story, no change, no conflict and their lives end with little to no emotional impact on the audience. For a good example of what I mean let's look at Annie and Lynda (Nancy Kyes and P.J. Soles), Laurie Strode's friends from the movie Halloween. They're typical teenage girls, saying typical teenage things and they expressly want to get laid that night. Next thing you know, they're dead.
That's it. Who cares? I know they're Laurie's friends and all but honestly, all they wanted to do was get laid and now they're dead. These things happen. Laurie on the other hand loves her parents, works hard in school, is a babysitter, is a comforting figure, has a crush on a boy... so on and so forth. I feel like I know Laurie Strode, I feel like I care about her and when her friends get killed it's not them I feel emotion for but Laurie... I worry that something might happen to poor Laurie. She's got a lot going on and so much to live for, she can't get killed now!
The trick to having a good, well developed character that people care about is giving them a back story, internal as well as external conflicts, goals and, more or less, a life outside of the scope of the film. They have to be real people that we're watching for the course of the story... what they did before we're aware of but not explicitly told and what they're doing after is dependent on their transformation through the story. Laurie Strode, unfortunately, did not change as a character... she didn't have a chance to, the movie just kind of ended as it is with horror movies. Halloween II picked up immediately where Halloween left off and introduced a whole new batch of forgettable characters, such as the nurse, who could have been walking around saying, "I'm a nurse... I'm a nurse... I'm a nurse" and had roughly the same impact. Laurie Strode did change eventually though, she went from victim to killer in Halloween: H20. It may have taken twenty years but she finally confronted her demons and made a real character change after which she could really move on and continue changing her life.
Larry Zerner e-mailed me last week, amazingly enough, and said something regarding horror movie characters that struck me as both funny and true, "In Friday the 13th Part 3, all the characters were three-dimensional (if you wore the glasses)." Replace "Friday the 13th Part 3" with just about any horror movie and it applies, there just isn't any character development. Laurie Strode was one of the few examples of a three-dimensional character but she lacked that final crisis decision to solidify change and instead let Dr. Loomis pull the trigger (she could have grabbed the gun or something, work with me here).
I've digressed a bit into the last topic but it applies to the question at hand. Can a three dimensional character be fully developed in the time before all the killing starts? The Halloween example proves that yes, it is possible and if the movie is constructed right it should play out completely by the end. How much time then should be devoted to this? Also, what about all the other characters? Should they just be killed fodder and have no real purpose except to be there?
The answer, in my opinion, is no. The problem then arises of how long until the killing starts? I've informally polled twenty people at work and got their thoughts on how long they're willing to wait before someone gets it. The median answer was a half hour. A few other answers were, "horror movies are retarded," "the opening credits," "all at once," and "who are you?" So, a half hour or so is as long as the majority of people will watch character development before someone has to die. I suppose I agree with this, but if done right, the time before the killing should be interesting and engaging.
If the characters develop well, have their own interesting plot lines and intriguing interpersonal relationships, the viewer may not even notice the time devoted... then again they did buy their ticket and sit down to see some hapless folks get killed. So it remains a double edged sword, try to develop the characters and have the audience connect, but don't drag it out so long that they get bored and want them to die anyway.
One movie in particular I know of that I was really getting antsy for the killing was Hostel. The first hour or so was porno, the rest was gross-out horror. Needless to say I was bored out of my mind for the first hour mainly because I didn't care about the characters. They weren't very deep and I was kind of disappointed that Paxton (Jay Hernandez) survived. Good luck playing the piano, chump!
Regardless, careful planning must be done to ensure I get these characters right and that my audience doesn't start to lose interest. Engaging characters, interesting subplots, complex relationships, the whole gamut, must be explored in thirty minutes because right around then this goes from character piece to "Hey, where's Barry?"
Still, I think I'm on the right track. I have one outline written but while writing this entry a few ideas came to me (I guess writing this actually DOES help) so a new outline must be written. I'm on the right path!
Next time... "Killing Your Characters: Gorefest, Quick and Easy or The Cutaway"
How long can I develop my characters before I start to bore my audience? In order to create a bond between the average moviegoer and the characters in the story I have to have a certain amount of development. There has to be something to latch onto and in order to do that I need a little bit of time. If I wanted one-dimensional throwaway characters there would be no problem, in fact I could have a group of thirty people, kill one every three minutes and there is a feature length film... but that's not what I want.
The flaw in the majority of horror films is that the characters are entirely one-dimensional. They are a means to an end, which in the case of a horror movie is to up the body count. They have one small purpose to their character, with no reason why, no back story, no change, no conflict and their lives end with little to no emotional impact on the audience. For a good example of what I mean let's look at Annie and Lynda (Nancy Kyes and P.J. Soles), Laurie Strode's friends from the movie Halloween. They're typical teenage girls, saying typical teenage things and they expressly want to get laid that night. Next thing you know, they're dead.
That's it. Who cares? I know they're Laurie's friends and all but honestly, all they wanted to do was get laid and now they're dead. These things happen. Laurie on the other hand loves her parents, works hard in school, is a babysitter, is a comforting figure, has a crush on a boy... so on and so forth. I feel like I know Laurie Strode, I feel like I care about her and when her friends get killed it's not them I feel emotion for but Laurie... I worry that something might happen to poor Laurie. She's got a lot going on and so much to live for, she can't get killed now!
The trick to having a good, well developed character that people care about is giving them a back story, internal as well as external conflicts, goals and, more or less, a life outside of the scope of the film. They have to be real people that we're watching for the course of the story... what they did before we're aware of but not explicitly told and what they're doing after is dependent on their transformation through the story. Laurie Strode, unfortunately, did not change as a character... she didn't have a chance to, the movie just kind of ended as it is with horror movies. Halloween II picked up immediately where Halloween left off and introduced a whole new batch of forgettable characters, such as the nurse, who could have been walking around saying, "I'm a nurse... I'm a nurse... I'm a nurse" and had roughly the same impact. Laurie Strode did change eventually though, she went from victim to killer in Halloween: H20. It may have taken twenty years but she finally confronted her demons and made a real character change after which she could really move on and continue changing her life.
Larry Zerner e-mailed me last week, amazingly enough, and said something regarding horror movie characters that struck me as both funny and true, "In Friday the 13th Part 3, all the characters were three-dimensional (if you wore the glasses)." Replace "Friday the 13th Part 3" with just about any horror movie and it applies, there just isn't any character development. Laurie Strode was one of the few examples of a three-dimensional character but she lacked that final crisis decision to solidify change and instead let Dr. Loomis pull the trigger (she could have grabbed the gun or something, work with me here).
I've digressed a bit into the last topic but it applies to the question at hand. Can a three dimensional character be fully developed in the time before all the killing starts? The Halloween example proves that yes, it is possible and if the movie is constructed right it should play out completely by the end. How much time then should be devoted to this? Also, what about all the other characters? Should they just be killed fodder and have no real purpose except to be there?
The answer, in my opinion, is no. The problem then arises of how long until the killing starts? I've informally polled twenty people at work and got their thoughts on how long they're willing to wait before someone gets it. The median answer was a half hour. A few other answers were, "horror movies are retarded," "the opening credits," "all at once," and "who are you?" So, a half hour or so is as long as the majority of people will watch character development before someone has to die. I suppose I agree with this, but if done right, the time before the killing should be interesting and engaging.
If the characters develop well, have their own interesting plot lines and intriguing interpersonal relationships, the viewer may not even notice the time devoted... then again they did buy their ticket and sit down to see some hapless folks get killed. So it remains a double edged sword, try to develop the characters and have the audience connect, but don't drag it out so long that they get bored and want them to die anyway.
One movie in particular I know of that I was really getting antsy for the killing was Hostel. The first hour or so was porno, the rest was gross-out horror. Needless to say I was bored out of my mind for the first hour mainly because I didn't care about the characters. They weren't very deep and I was kind of disappointed that Paxton (Jay Hernandez) survived. Good luck playing the piano, chump!
Regardless, careful planning must be done to ensure I get these characters right and that my audience doesn't start to lose interest. Engaging characters, interesting subplots, complex relationships, the whole gamut, must be explored in thirty minutes because right around then this goes from character piece to "Hey, where's Barry?"
Still, I think I'm on the right track. I have one outline written but while writing this entry a few ideas came to me (I guess writing this actually DOES help) so a new outline must be written. I'm on the right path!
Next time... "Killing Your Characters: Gorefest, Quick and Easy or The Cutaway"
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Breaking In: Horror or Comedy?
I recently gave some thought as to what it takes to break into the industry. When looking at those that have recently hit it big, whether writing or directing, they seem to fall into only two genres: horror and comedy.
I know there are a lot of new indie directors that make poignent masterpieces that illicit deep thought and question the moral compass of the everyman, but very few of those are true breakout hits (though there are some). So, statistically speaking, the surest bet would be to go with the aforementioned horror or comedy.
Two problems spring to mind though within each of these genres; modern horror was gone from scary to torture porn or remakes of Japanese movie and comedy has moved into BIG ACTOR DOING FUNNY JOB (with notable exceptions). I like going off in my own direction when it comes to writing and that may pose so problems, most of all being the commerciality of the script. If you want to do your original, daring work you have to be established first, so in order to do so, should one sacrifice a little originality for commercialism?
I don't know the answer, which is why I'm writing out this blog and not working on a script. Most people are going to say "go with your gut instinct, write the script you want to write, be original and daring!" and as much as I like doing that, it's what I did with the soon to be retitled "Vengeance" after all, is that really the course of action that's going to get me my in? A solid script is a solid script but the hardest thing is to get a studio to take a chance on an unknown without something that has a built in audience. A psychological thriller may not be the way to go, so I've been looking at, once again, horror or comedy.
A low budget horror movie has been a huge jumping point for a lot of writer/directors: John Carpenter, Wes Craven, Sam Raimi and Eli Roth. They got their script and directed their own movie, which ultimately is what I'd like to do, but I wouldn't mind selling my screenplays either. Horror movies have established audiences. If it falls into the horror category, a certain amount of people will go regardless of what critics say. If I were to write a horror movie that could be filmed cheaply, would that help my chances of breaking into the film industry? Possibly, but should it be original? Derivative? What do people want to see... it's a lot of guesswork. Ultimately I could try raising money myself and write a movie that could be filmed cheap enough, without taking away from the feel, and just doing it myself and screening it at festivals. A possibility, if I knew some people with money.
A comedy is very hit or miss. Scary is scary but funny is subjective. I have kind of a dry humor, with a lot of observational, situational and societal humor. In short, I don't do slapstick. Once in awhile maybe, but overall I go for the dialogue laughs so the view has to pay semi-attention to what's going on. The question is should I balance the slapstick with the dialogue, stick to what I prefer, or go for straight slapstick (Slapstick to me is not just bodily humor but one liner after one liner after one liner. Like a Will Ferrell movie). Society as a whole today seems to prefer this sort of thing, escapism perhaps, than a Clerks type of movie.
Still, I have one horror script and two comedies that I'm working on at the moment (not at the same time) and I'm trying to figure out which one to focus on the most. I'm leaning towards horror in the off chance I might be able to make the movie myself and go down that route. Still, I really enjoy the comedies and may develop those and take my own advice and balance out the dialogue with some throwaway silliness. I'll keep at it regardless. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd be happy to hear them.
I know there are a lot of new indie directors that make poignent masterpieces that illicit deep thought and question the moral compass of the everyman, but very few of those are true breakout hits (though there are some). So, statistically speaking, the surest bet would be to go with the aforementioned horror or comedy.
Two problems spring to mind though within each of these genres; modern horror was gone from scary to torture porn or remakes of Japanese movie and comedy has moved into BIG ACTOR DOING FUNNY JOB (with notable exceptions). I like going off in my own direction when it comes to writing and that may pose so problems, most of all being the commerciality of the script. If you want to do your original, daring work you have to be established first, so in order to do so, should one sacrifice a little originality for commercialism?
I don't know the answer, which is why I'm writing out this blog and not working on a script. Most people are going to say "go with your gut instinct, write the script you want to write, be original and daring!" and as much as I like doing that, it's what I did with the soon to be retitled "Vengeance" after all, is that really the course of action that's going to get me my in? A solid script is a solid script but the hardest thing is to get a studio to take a chance on an unknown without something that has a built in audience. A psychological thriller may not be the way to go, so I've been looking at, once again, horror or comedy.
A low budget horror movie has been a huge jumping point for a lot of writer/directors: John Carpenter, Wes Craven, Sam Raimi and Eli Roth. They got their script and directed their own movie, which ultimately is what I'd like to do, but I wouldn't mind selling my screenplays either. Horror movies have established audiences. If it falls into the horror category, a certain amount of people will go regardless of what critics say. If I were to write a horror movie that could be filmed cheaply, would that help my chances of breaking into the film industry? Possibly, but should it be original? Derivative? What do people want to see... it's a lot of guesswork. Ultimately I could try raising money myself and write a movie that could be filmed cheap enough, without taking away from the feel, and just doing it myself and screening it at festivals. A possibility, if I knew some people with money.
A comedy is very hit or miss. Scary is scary but funny is subjective. I have kind of a dry humor, with a lot of observational, situational and societal humor. In short, I don't do slapstick. Once in awhile maybe, but overall I go for the dialogue laughs so the view has to pay semi-attention to what's going on. The question is should I balance the slapstick with the dialogue, stick to what I prefer, or go for straight slapstick (Slapstick to me is not just bodily humor but one liner after one liner after one liner. Like a Will Ferrell movie). Society as a whole today seems to prefer this sort of thing, escapism perhaps, than a Clerks type of movie.
Still, I have one horror script and two comedies that I'm working on at the moment (not at the same time) and I'm trying to figure out which one to focus on the most. I'm leaning towards horror in the off chance I might be able to make the movie myself and go down that route. Still, I really enjoy the comedies and may develop those and take my own advice and balance out the dialogue with some throwaway silliness. I'll keep at it regardless. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd be happy to hear them.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Whew
Whew
After a few weeks of reading, rewriting, reading, throwing away, erasing, lighting on fire and weeping I think I might maybe have something viable to send to a few screenplay contests.
The script is called "Vengeance" and it's the mystery/thriller I previously mentioned. My log line is (I need to work on this) ...
"A detective must battle his addiction and the ghosts of his past in order to find a killer."
It's short, it's catchy, it has a beat you can dance to. I think I'm going in the right direction with it. Who knows, maybe my readers are script agents and Hollywood producers basking in the anonymity of the internet. Wait a second... do I have any readers?
At any rate, if you're interested in reading it, just drop me a line and I'll send a .pdf your way.
I'm pretty happy with it at the moment, of course since everything in this field is subjective, you may hate it entirely, but hey, you may love it. I may rewrite it again somewhere down the road, but for now, I think it's good enough to enter in a few contests... now to find some.
After a few weeks of reading, rewriting, reading, throwing away, erasing, lighting on fire and weeping I think I might maybe have something viable to send to a few screenplay contests.
The script is called "Vengeance" and it's the mystery/thriller I previously mentioned. My log line is (I need to work on this) ...
"A detective must battle his addiction and the ghosts of his past in order to find a killer."
It's short, it's catchy, it has a beat you can dance to. I think I'm going in the right direction with it. Who knows, maybe my readers are script agents and Hollywood producers basking in the anonymity of the internet. Wait a second... do I have any readers?
At any rate, if you're interested in reading it, just drop me a line and I'll send a .pdf your way.
I'm pretty happy with it at the moment, of course since everything in this field is subjective, you may hate it entirely, but hey, you may love it. I may rewrite it again somewhere down the road, but for now, I think it's good enough to enter in a few contests... now to find some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
