48 Hour Film Project Film, "Ling Pan and the Keys of Deception"

This is a short film entitled "Ling Pan and the Keys of Deception" as created for the 48hour Film Project 5/29-5/31 2009. For the project our genre was "Martial Arts" the object was "Keys" the character was "Bethany Grimes, professional organizer" and the line was "You're not going to believe what I just heard" so we put all those in there! For contact info for anyone involved, please find my e-mail to the right!

The 48 Hour Film Project

Hiya folks. I signed up on Monday for the 48 Hour Film Project in New York and am currently getting my team together. After reading about it and watching a few of the videos it looks like it's going to be a ton of fun.

I'm always open for different ideas and if you're going to be free the last weekend in May, drop me a line and we'll see about finding something for you to do. I've got almost ten people so far to help out, a plan for renting equipment and a few people that actually might know what they're doing, so that's a plus.

Also more fun news, my FINDING DAVID short film will be up on Amazon soon, so that's fun. I'll have more info on that as it comes. Whee!

Horror: Seeing vs. Imagining

I've been working on an outline for a new horror screenplay the past couple of weeks (and neglecting my updates) and I've decided to take a different approach from my slasher/gore fest.

I got to thinking about what is scarier, what someone else thinks is scary, or what you personally think is scary. The answer is obvious of course, which is why when you're laying in your bed late at night you're way better at giving yourself the heebie jeebies than any movie could muster.

That lead me to come up with a list of movies that don't really show you anything scary but instead let your imagination run wild - and really create a much more memorable experience because of it. The monster isn't the star such as a slasher movie, but the location, the feel; the sense that something is wrong and you want to get the hell out of there.


The Haunting (1963)

This movie doesn't show a thing in terms of monsters/ghosts/etc. It merely sets up the scares, increases the tension and then lets you do the rest. You watch the characters reactions to what's going on around them and they're just as in the dark as you are. One scene that really sticks out is when the large, wooden door is being pressed in, almost to the point of breaking - you're sure that whatever is on the other side is about to burst through and do something awful... and then it leaves. It was a very tense moment because the stomping through the halls had been building and building to that moment. The women were safe for now, but, what if it came back?

The Changeling (1980)

The scariest thing you see in this movie is George C. Scott, by and far. The only real representation of the "ghost" in this story is a wheelchair in a hidden room in the attic, other than that it's the house that is the real scary character. There was no need for special effects (or if it were made now, a weird CGI ghost) to represent what was scary, it was just the atmosphere and the sense of something being wrong that built the tension through the story. What I love about the movie is when things finally seem to be calming down, the problem had been solved and things feel like they're going to be okay, one of the biggest scares of almost any movie ever comes. All it has in it is a mirror and a quick cut - and it was perfect.

The Wicker Man (1973)

From the moment Woodward arrives at Summersisle you know that something is wrong with that place but you can't quite put your finger on what. I wanted him very much to just get out and leave that place but I also had an interest in him finding in the missing girl, so he couldn't leave until his mission was fulfilled, one way or the other. There is a definite eerie atmosphere throughout the film that starts to get to the main character and the audience as well. Even though the remake has Nicolas Cage punching women while wearing a bear suit, this one is superior.

Les Diaboliques (1955)

A man's wife and mistress conspire to kill him, and they do so fairly quick into the film... but did they really kill him? This story deals with guilt and deception and is very tense as the main character seems to be losing her mind over the course of the story. I wouldn't say this is a straight horror film but it certainly delves down that path with the supposed haunting and hallucinations and it has a fantastic story taking place in a French boarding school.

--

It really comes down to what you don't show in these films and the general discomfort the audience feels when watching the film. A good ghost story doesn't have to have any ghosts in it, it just has to have the right feel, the right atmosphere, and some people that stick around to get to the bottom of things instead of getting the hell out of there.

There are a lot of other films that don't reveal who is doing the killing/haunting until the end such as Psycho but I was looking more into the haunted house/place stories that really struck a chord with me. I've got my location all worked out and I'll be starting on the first draft soon enough, and I'm really going to work on the feel of the story and the deteriorating mindset of my poor protagonist.

As for my query letters, I've been pretty slow about getting that in motion but I signed up for my logline to appear in the Inktip paper newsletter that is going out the end of April (I think), so that's a good step. Also through a friend of a friend I managed to get my slasher film in the hands of a reader for the Yari Film Group. They have some great credits but I don't think a slasher is really their style... but hey, you never know!

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!

Submissions, Rewrites and Titles

I've submitted my romantic comedy to the Bluecat Screenplay Contest so that's fun. They provide notes with their entries so hopefully I'll have those by February. Script P.I.M.P. has also started their contest once again so once I receive my latest notes on my slasher film I'll be entering that contest as well. The problem with screenplay contests is that it takes so long to hear back, there are a few monthly screenplay contests floating around but I'm not quite sure of their legitimacy.

At any rate, BLOOD IN THE TREES went through its umpteenth rewrite and I think I finally have my narrative flow down well. The problem before (I hate when a problem is pointed out that's been there all along, I feel silly finally realizing something IS a problem) was that the narrative followed the characters along for the duration of the story. Essentially from page 25-90 the characters were all together doing their thing, so I've added in a complete subplot which allows breaks from the actions of the main characters as well as provides a different perspective on the events that are happening.

Tuesday I'll be submitting it back to the development service. Each time I get their notes back I seem to be a closer to where I need to be so hopefully I made a big jump with this. Just as a little motivation I read what happens to the people that are recommended by them, there are a couple dozen options, people finding representation, and a few movies that have been made, so that's good. It would also explain why it's so hard to GET that rating but I suppose I shouldn't mind going through the trouble of writing a great story.

Speaking of great stories I've gone fishing for some opinions on my romantic comedy and thus far everyone has really enjoyed it, so that's a plus. I actually enjoyed writing it more than the slasher film if only because my characters weren't brutally dispatched halfway through. It's nice seeing a happy ending, haha.

Ah, to the issue of a title. I still think BLOOD IN THE TREES is an okay title but there COULD be a better one. Just looking at the titles of horror movies out there, they're generally silly. I suppose mine rates up there on the silly scale but I'd like something a little stronger. BEHIND SUBURBIA was a decent title as well but for some reason I was the only person to think so and "it left the reader unsure of the genre of the film" ... so that's bad. I'd hate for people to expect a poignant drama of the struggles families have living a suburban lifestyle and end up with a bunch of dead teenagers. So if anyone has a horror movie title they've had laying around that they always wanted to use, send it my way.

My ultra low-budget mocumentary FINDING DAVID is just about finished. I know I've been saying that but the end of this month is the ultimatum because I want to get it into the Garden State Film Festival. I think it's decent enough to be in it. Well, after going last year I'm pretty sure it is, but of course I don't know what the heck they'll ultimately choose. Even so, we'll be getting a website for it set up soon enough and you can own your very own copy, exciting, no?

At any rate, I'll update once I get my notes back and have some more FINDING DAVID news.

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!

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.

So Much for Updating More Frequently

But still, what's the point of updating if there's nothing to update? Now that I have a few things I can make a semi-coherent blog entry.

*ahem*

At any rate, I received more notes from the Script P.I.M.P development service and have made some changes and added a few scenes to Blood in the Trees (I'm still open for a better title, by the way) and I'll be resubmitting to them in the next week or so. Here's to hoping that I've finally covered everything that needs to be covered without making any more problems. It's either that or they're just stringing me along, hoping I'll keep paying for that coveted "recommend" rating. It's a dysfunctional relationship but I think deep down they still love me.

My romantic comedy is coming along nicely, I'm 1/8th of the way into having a first draft. That's sort of swimmingly I guess. I do have a completed outline and a fun hook. I must say that the first fifteen pages are packed with everything that's needed to suck an audience in and set up the rest of the story, so no more of my "waiting too long to get started" problem. Plus it's fun writing witty dialogue and having it expected as opposed to being out of place in a horror setting. Even so, instead of selling the movie if someone can cut me a check I'll just go make the movie myself... that would be way more fun.

I also came up with a great idea for a classic ghost story. I think horror movies wherein the atmosphere is scary (i.e. The Haunting) as opposed to be scared of something are a lot creepier than the creature features that have been around. Think of The Ring; before you actually saw the little girl and you were getting bits of information with that air of foreboding it was really creepy. That's also why The Ring 2 was crap! Crap I say! I'll be working out that script after the rom-com, I've had enough of horror for awhile.

A reader (I presume the only one) contacted me the other day and told me about stuff he's working on and how he's hoping to get his name out there. He is working out a distribution deal right now for his first feature, a quirky/funny horror movie Hamlet the Vampire Slayer which I've conveniently linked for... well for me. I hope he has good luck with that... then he can hook me up!

Finding David is almost finished (just some editing tweaks to do) and hopefully we'll be able to get it into a festival or two and have even a fraction of success that Aaron is having.

So... more stuff happening and I'll update when they do!

Blood in the Slasher and Romance in the Romcom

I've retitled my slasher movie "Blood in the Trees" since that sounds... hmm... more slashery. I was told that "Behind Suburbia" sounded too artsy for a horror movie - and wouldn't be perceived as one just by the title. An odd observation but an accurate one though I don't know many people that randomly pick a movie to see based on the title alone. If anyone has a suggestion for a BETTER title, please let me know.

At any rate, I resubmitted "Blood in the Trees" to the Script P.I.M.P. development service (seeing as how it was technically "Behind Suburbia" version 10) to see what they say about all the changes. I think the last time they saw the screenplay was version 3, so it has definitely come a long way since then. At least I hope it has. I think the visual writing went pretty well and the screenplay is a lot smoother and more dynamic. POW!

I've also put my eccentric comedy on hold in favor of a semi-formulaic romantic comedy. The eccentric comedy was getting a little TOO weird so I may have to go back and change things, but while doing so a great idea for a romantic comedy popped into my head and I decided to run with it. I'm partway through the outline and so far it is really shaping up. Of course, the plot of a romantic comedy is pretty easy to hash out, it's just a matter of creating characters that people love and can identify with.

Here's my formula for a romantic comedy, please swap genders depending on your protagonist:

1. Guy has a lousy (or too perfect) life.
2. Comes up with plan to improve life (or a plan backfires).
3. Meets and falls head over heels for someone they meet during plan.
4. Other person reciprocates.
5. Plan blows up in face, loses other person.
6. Redemption.
7. True love (but at the opposite of original expectations).
8. The End.

Easy, no? Don't get me wrong, there are a ton of mutations on the genre but if you break them down enough this is essentially what they boil down to. Some stories come in at step 5 (High Fidelity) then retell steps 1-4, but all of those steps are there.

The trick to being successful in this genre is to find a unique way of going through the steps. I'm not talking make it a Momento-esque retelling, I mean find something unique. Give the protagonist a unique job/interest, give them an original plan to go through with, make the other person outside of the norm for true love (The Holiday: Cameron Diaz + Jude Law = romantic comedy. Kate Winslet + Jack Black = what?). Or you could always write several half stories, slap them together through odd coincidences and you have a complete movie (Love Actually, which I really enjoyed).

So - you know where you start, you know how it's going to end - you just have to fill in those little bits in the middle and you've got yourself a romantic comedy. The plus side is that romantic comedies have a built in audience, even the crappy ones seem to be decently successful at the box office, especially if they have some star power behind them.

My previous post was right, having school work to do definitely gets the creative juices flowing!

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.

Red Inkworks Words of Encouragement

I entered the Red Inkworks contest in the middle of May and this past weekend I received a nice letter from the head of the contest, Larry Myles. He was actually really impressed with my story and thoroughly enjoyed the screenplay. It feels really great to have that sort of boost; encouragement from someone within the industry.

Here are some excerpts:

"I consider your premise as engaging, and a solid foundation for an entertainment vehicle. I am impressed with your ability to expand a solid premise into a viable story. In the case of SUBURBIA, the story is entertaining, as well as complete. And although there are areas of concern, your story is better than advertised as a cutting edge horror-thriller – as it delivers the goods."

So all those blogs I wrote about what was lacking in slasher/horror films and my lofty goals of actually trying to incorporate character change and deeper plot elements in the story actually helped me. So I've got that going for me.

"The development of your characters plays an integral part in the story and will certainly assist in making the final translation (screenplay) work. I appreciate how you have found success in making the combination of story and characters matter. "

"It is obvious the premise supporting SUBURBIA holds genuine value – evidenced by an abundance of energy, vitality and ‘edge’ found in both story and actions of the characters."

"Clearly, you have invested time and hard work into your story, paying attention to detail. From the lead-in right through to the (rewarding) climax, you are able to draw upon the energy generated from working the tension levels between the controlling idea versus counter idea."

That feels really great to hear. I may have to resubmit to Script P.I.M.P. and see what their thoughts are on all the changes I've made since I submitted my script to them (about 4 versions ago). It may be worth a second shot there, but, of course, not everything is perfect.

"In essence, what I am suggesting is to set aside your marvellous story-telling abilities aside and start thinking as a visualist – showing us your story, rather than attempting to tell us your story."

I can completely understand where he's coming from with this. Instead of showing what a character is thinking through their actions I may just describe their emotional state - which of course doesn't really translate well onto screen. I don't think it's an inability to accomplish that, it's more of an easy way out. Instead of showing how a character is impatient, they're just impatient. Fair enough.

I've since gone through and fixed just about all of those problems. I more or less did a search for the word "look" in my screenplay and then made the line far more dynamic. That solved a lot of the problem right off the bat.

What I do appreciate the most out of everything was the last paragraph:

"What I would like to see you do is address the issues I have raised. Once complete, email me the first six pages of your script. I will be able to sort out if you are practicing economic and visual-only action descriptions. No additional reading fee would be expected or accepted. I only want to make sure you are on the right path when it comes to mastering the craft of screenwriting. "

So it's nice to know that he'll sit down and see that I'm on the right path for fixing my little errors. It's also great to know that my story is solid and that all of my time and effort are paying off in a great screenplay. I also know of another pitfall I need to make myself more aware of when writing, and solve another problem before it even starts.

I'm also curious to see how the new and improved visual style of writing does in comparison to the other style, so I'll be entering a few more contests. I'll pepper my name out there best I can, sooner or later it will fall into the hands of someone looking to make a horror film.

Opening a Comedy

Starting a comedy script is a lot different than starting a horror script. In horror, you want to save the best for last, the big payoff involving the killer, the last survivor and whatever else you've cooked up in the course of the story. Sure, you open with a token death, or the remnants of the latest kill (or both), but you want to entice the audience to stay longer to find out just what's going to happen. In a comedy, it's the exact opposite, you want them to be laughing so hard they have no choice BUT to stay.

Your comedy should start with something hilarious.

You want to get your audience in the correct mindset to laugh, and put them in the mood to do so. Sometimes, this gag can be your inciting incident and other times it's just a brief introduction to the character that you're going to be getting to know through the rest of the film.

American Pie opens with the main character masturbating and getting caught by his parents, a relationship set up that plays out through the rest of the film. Annie Hall opens with Alvy discussing directly to the audience why he's so messed up, something that plays out in every Woody Allen film. Dr. Strangelove opens with a deluded general initiating the start of global thermonuclear war while the rest of the film is everyone else scrambling to deal with it. Duck Soup opens with Groucho being put in charge of an entire country - and opens with a song and dance number.

The examples go on and on for comedy - if it works, it works. The thing with modern comedies as mentioned previously is that they are now going for more gross out humor than really thinking about why things are funny. Eating poo or being high? Hilarious. Watching dysfunction impair social relationships even though the main character relates to everyone he knows because of that fact? Not so much (to audiences anyway).

You Don't Mess with The Zohan opened with Adam Sandler being naked and catching things in his butt. I thought the movie as a whole was funny but that gag was just... odd. The audience seemed to love it though, so whatever works (I personally found the "fish out of water" jokes to be funnier).

All in all a comedy has to be funny to a lot of people but you cannot neglect the story in an effort to fit in as many jokes as possible. The situations that arise from the protagonist solving the effects of the inciting incident should be what makes the movie funny and memorable. Subplots and ancillary characters are perfect for the really awkward/hilarious moments, but whenever the main character is involved, the plot should always be moving forward. That's the key - but a lot of comedies muddy the water towards the end.

By the end of most comedies the plot has taken a turn for the serious as the character(s) attempt to right things and a lot of the earlier humor is gone in favor of trying to cram the plot that should have been developing since the beginning into the very end of the film. It's a case of too much story in not enough time. I love a good, well told story but the pacing is essential. Jokes without merit are funny, sure, but if that aren't moving the plot forward they're just filling up time that will have to be made up elsewhere.

These are just a few things that the writer needs to be aware of when constructing a comedy. The story is the most important part of any screenplay, and if you're setting up a hilarious situation just for the sake of setting it up - you probably don't need it. Find a reason in the plot for that hilarious situation, and you've got yourself a memorable comedy.

Just about any Judd Apatow movie (40 Year Old Virgin, Blades of Glory, Semi-Pro, Superbad, Walk Hard, etc.) has some hilarious, gut-busting moments, but for the life of me I can't really think of what they had to do with the plot, and unfortunately I remember them more than the funny things that happened within the actual story. This leads me to not wanting to see the movie again, not because they were bad but because some things are hilarious once. Randomness is funny but then loses its luster, but a great story will always be a great story.

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!

Behind Suburbia finished (in theory) and Moving On

I've completed my version 5 (tenth rewrite, approximately) of Behind Suburbia and finally submitted it to a few contests. I got the notes back from Script Pimp but I did not find them nearly as helpful as the previous set. I saw that I did solve all of the previous problems except for one though (which version 5 rectified) ... but I still received a "pass" rating because of it. Aside from that one helpful hint the rest of the notes were something along the lines of "you need more horror movie conventions but don't make this a conventional horror movie."

All righty.

Needless to say I did not follow them as closely this round and now it's time to see what some contest judges have to say about it. I submitted to the PAGE Awards and something else I can't quite remember off-hand. Regardless, if this places better than "perfect ending" I'll know that I've improved and will feel pretty good about myself. If I won I'd feel awesome... but anyway, I'm happy with the script.

I'll be sending out some query letters soon to get some feelers out there to try and find a producer or an agent. I have two solid scripts and several more in the works so I'm building a decent base to work from. Hopefully I'll get some decent responses and I'll write an entry about query letters soon.

In the meanwhile I've had two good ideas come to the surface. One is a reworking of a comedy script I wrote when I first got interested in screenwriting. I enjoy that version but the overhaul I'm envisioning would have me start over from scratch. The second idea was a modern-day sci-fi movie, i.e. takes place now but has futuristic elements the common populace is not aware of. I've already started the character backgrounds and the outline, and I think it has a lot of potential. I'm just tired of being so serious.

My first set of notes compared my dialogue to Woody Allen and Kevin Smith. Not to toot my own horn but I have a knack for observational and conversational humor, and I really want to do something where I don't have to kill off a bunch of characters. I know, what fun would a slasher flick or murder mystery be without the dead bodies... and the premise of my sci-fi film would require some killing. Not a lot, mind you, but a few. Plus it would be a serious film.

The comedy would be fun, so I'm actually thinking about working on both at the same time. Then I can alternate my entries between comedy and sci-fi genre conventions and explore two things at the same time. Mind you that would entail me watching a ton more movies to cover both genres, but hey, I think it's a task I'm willing to undertake. I don't think I'd be able to WRITE both of them at the same time, but I can certainly do all of my outlining and pre-planning.

So, that's fun. I'll keep you all updated as things move forward. If anyone is curious to read "Behind Suburbia" feel free to e-mail me. Especially if you are a producer looking for a writer/director ... I'd really be up for that.

Resubmitted and Moving Forward

Just a quick update, I've resubmitted "Behind Suburbia" to the Script PIMP development service, I've requested the same reader so they can see the progress I've made and that I actually paid attention to their suggestions. I got tired of waiting for my editor to read the latest version, but I think I caught all of the errors throughout. Structurally it's sound, I'm, sure on that.

I also noticed I've been rather antsy lately, kind of restless and agitated. I was just going with the flow until last night, when I was just in a very agitated state. It took me until this morning to realize that it's because I haven't worked on anything new in awhile. A writer has to write, no?

I've been up to my ears in slasher movies for the past six months, and I've been been rewriting the same piece of work since mid-February. I think after the results come back I'm going to just make some minor adjustments (it's never perfect) and then submit it to the Script PIMP contest and the Nicholl Fellowship. If I can make it to the later rounds at least I know I've improved a lot since last year.

As for the writing bug, well, I think I'm going to be moving on to a comedy. I've killed enough people in my last two screenplays, it's time for something lighthearted where people aren't allowed to die, though I can hurt them for comedic effect so long as they can stand up and say, "well that sucked!"

So expect a thorough analysis of the comedy genre in the coming months as I analyze what works, what doesn't work, some of the genre conventions and my own insights into the characterization of an amusing, albeit identifiable character.

I don't mind rewriting, mind you, but after staring at the same characters for the past few months I need someone new to mess around with. I'm proud of Behind Suburbia. I think it's come a long way since the first draft, and I think this draft has some real potential. I think that even if the development service gives it a "pass" (it's a 50/50 shot) I think I'll still send out some query letters and try to get it into the right hands anyway.

I mean come on, if the last few movies that have been released in the horror genre are any indication, I think my script should be able to stand up just fine. Maybe.

I'll have an update with the results later or next week, as for now it's time to break out my trusty composition notebook (I was using yellow legal pads but the ones I buy have lousy binding) and get crackin'!

Motivation. AKA: Please don't kill me, I have to feed my fish!

I've just finished the 3rd rewrite of "Behind Suburbia" today based off of the notes I received from Script P.I.M.P ... I wrote the 2nd version immediately after receiving the notes and have spent the past week and a half pondering if the changes really had the desired effect. After having someone re-read it yesterday (and being helpfully super-critical)... no, they didn't.

Hence my 3rd rewrite. As mentioned in the notes it's important to show the reader (or viewer) the genre of the film in the first five or ten minutes. If they're in a horror movie, it's best that they know it soon, otherwise they'll learn to like the characters too much and be really upset when some guy starts hacking them apart. It's also important that all of your characters have significant motivation.

What is motivation? I always though that in a slasher film, it was the desire to live. It's your life! What more is there than that? Well... lots. I gave my characters a semblance of depth in my first version but now I have "raised the stakes" so to speak. Living is one thing, but having a reason to live is a whole new ballpark, and a whole new level of story telling as well.

Let me give an example of what I mean by this:

Fred is 23, fat, watches a lot of television and is an unfortunate college dropout. He is a recently unemployed copy machine repairman, lives in a cheap apartment (he thinks he's too good for mom's basement) and has frequent midnight runs to Wawa for a meatball sub. This, in Fred's mind, is the pinnacle of life. He comes and goes as he pleases, doesn't have anyone to answer to, sleeps late and has no drive to fix any of his flaws.

Johnny is 22, average build, and a senior in college, class of 2008. He is majoring in microbiology and plans to go to graduate school. Doing so would make his parents proud but, more so, it would make Johnny proud of himself. He hopes to one day settle down with a nice girl (or guy), but that's in the future, and he'll take one day at a time as he works towards his goal.

So... what's the difference between these two guys? On the superficial level, Johnny is goal-oriented and Fred is a loser. Johnny has purpose in life and Fred just kind of bumbles along taking whatever comes. Johnny has a reason to live and it's obvious to everyone around him, and no one would miss Fred except Fred's goldfish.

Poor Fred, right? Not so fast.

We're just superficially looking at these people, they're fairly one dimensional as described. To make a true character they need to have depth and complex relationships... as I've mentioned in previous entries they must be multi-dimensional.

If we put both of these characters into a story I think Johnny might sound a little boring at first. He studies, goes to bed early and is pretty cookie-cutter. But what exactly is Johnny researching at school? Is he studying under a professor (Dr. Ezra) that is actually working for the department of defense, making a new bio-weapon with the unwitting Johnny as his loyal lackey? That adds quite a bit of depth, no? Let's take it a little farther. What if Johnny stumbles on his professor's notes and figures out what he's working on. If he takes a stand against this, Johnny has transcended into protagonist, and someone we want to know... what's his ultimate decision?

Now Fred is bumbling through life, as I've mentioned, but he has a lot of free time. What if one night he sees a panicked young man at the Wawa, suffering from some sort of terrible illness? Fred, although a little self-centered is not a complete bastard, and stops to ask the man if he's okay. The man thrusts a small vial into Fred's hands and tells him that this is the only known cure, and that he has to take it to... Dr. Prentiss in Walla Walla, who will know how to replicate it and make sure that no one gets hurt. Dr. Ezra's not evil... just... not well... and the poor man drops dead at his feet, leaving Fred holding the vial.

Fred receiving the vial is the first scene of Fred's story. All of the other stuff mentioned about Johnny and Fred is their past, it's what makes them who they are... but what we want to know is, what does Fred DO with the vial? Suddenly this loser has the fate of the world in his hand and the question becomes not only will he do it... but CAN he do it? Fred on the top level has the world in his hands, but his is actually a story of redemption, to prove to everyone, and especially to himself, that he's not a loser after all.

Knowing where your characters are coming from is important in understanding the decisions they make at that crisis moment... and it was that little bit of background that was lacking from a few of my characters in "Behind Suburbia" which I believe has now been fixed.

These characters have to want more than the live, they have to have something to DO with their lives should they get to keep it! That's what makes them interesting, dynamic and of course... watchable.

Whew. I'll be resubmitting as soon as I talk my editor into looking for all the tiny little errors I seem to miss. Stay tuned.

What was that called again?

I've asked several people to help me come up with a title for my slasher screenplay and the most common response I get is, "pick a good line from the script and there's your title." Unfortunately either I'm not very good at picking lines or just the thought of a character having the titular line just kind of throws the audience off a little.

Every time I hear someone say the titular line I always chuckle a little, even if it's a serious movie. I think that notion comes from a sketch from the Upright Citizens Brigade. There was a video store clerk that claimed he had the titular lines in Out of Africa and Star Wars. For Out of Africa he said it was when Robert Redford was teaching Meryl Streep to drive, there was a lot of traffic and he pulls of next to them and says, "Boy I'm tired of all this traffic, I can't wait to get Out of Africa." and he had just filmed himself and put it into the video tape. I guess you had to see it, but that stuck with me... hence my avoidance to using one.

Picking a theme or an event in the movie is another popular method of choosing a title, but there's really not enough going on in the movie to merit a theme. It could be called "Reggie's Party" or "The Last Get Together" but I don't know. The former could be mistaken for a Reggie Jackson biopic and the latter would probably be about old people or a cancer patient. Not really slasher movie-esque.

Slasher movies (and horror in general) have a pretty standard title formula: place, date or monster. Friday the 13th, Halloween, Prom Night, Black Christmas, April Fool's Day, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Poltergeist, Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Evil Dead, The Haunting, House on Haunted Hill, The Changeling, The Exorcist, so on and so forth. Mundane things turned deadly! Unfortunately all the good ones were taken so I'm left with Arbor Day or obscure holidays no one will get yet are relevant to the story. I could call it Mabon but then my audience would consist of Wiccans even though the date is relevant to the story.

The same two ideas keep coming back to me and I really can't work them out to fit a slasher movie. As I mentioned in a previous blog I came up with "_____ Woods" or "_____ Park" but I just can't find a proper noun that would fit the theme of the story. I mean, a random name isn't really going to cut it in this case but giving the name of the woods would just be... naming the woods. Perhaps I'm over thinking it but maybe those are just lousy titles. "Reggie's Woods" "Scutter Park" ... who knows.

There are always the semi-descriptive titles that tell a little about the story but don't give away too much. Most of the characters know each other from the past but a few new people are introduced to the group, so it could be called "Old Friends, New Acquaintances" but that sounds more like a romantic comedy than a slasher film. In fact, I think I WILL use that for a romantic comedy, so now that you've seen it, don't steal it. Okay, hmm, some of the characters have some loose morals in regards to their relationships, so I could call the movie "Loose Morals" ... but once again that doesn't sound like a slasher movie. It kind of sounds like an 80's teen comedy, but not a good one, one of the bad ones with Andrew McCarthy. The only decent ones I can come up with would give away the whole story so they're completely out of the running and I won't even mention them.

So, in light of this I'm leaving it up to you, dear reader, to help me come up with a decent title for my slasher screenplay. Just e-mail me or leave a comment and if it's awesome, you'll have earned a special thanks.

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.

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.

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"