This one’s long overdue, I know.

Let’s get right into it.

Will this script be a gem of a sale that everyone’s talking about, or a diamond in the rough left for the few that have the opportunity to read it?

(The biggest problem I had with this script is I kept typing Descendents when it’s Descendants. The file is misspelled which probably didn’t help, lol.)

Don’t forget to check out the script here.

1.) Marketability of the Idea

This is one of those stories that walks the fence between two genres, but doesn’t quite fit in either.

Is it a romantic comedy with a very dramatic element, or is it a drama laced with dark romantic comedy?

My guess would be the latter, and it definitely has an interesting premise. A husband finds out his dying, comatose wife was cheating on him.

I’m listening…

2.) Plot Stability

The overall plot is interesting enough.

Matt’s wife Elizabeth is in a coma, and will soon be taken off life support.

He brings his daughters home so they can deal with it as a family. One problem though, they’re pretty dysfunctional.

Matt’s oldest daughter, Alexandra, comes home and admits Elizabeth was cheating on Matt. When he questions Elizabeth’s friends he finds out this is true, and that Elizabeth was planning on leaving him.

He then goes on a quest, with his daughters, to track down and confront his wife’s lover, Brian.

Again, when I break it down simply like that it sounds fine, but the problem is the implementation.

The story isn’t necessarily episodic, as much as it’s just characters going through the motions set up by the author.

In addition to that, the B story is about Matt and his cousins selling off this large chunk of land that will net them millions. All of Hawaii is abuzz about it. This leads to more plot problems as it doesn’t really fit, nor do his actions seem genuine in relation to the land deal.

20 Questions: Land Deal Edition

Page 18.

Barb is the mother of one of the girls in Matt’s youngest daughter’s, Scottie, class. There’s some problems between the girls, and Barb wants Scottie to apologize. Matt obliges, which in itself seems rather silly given everything he has on his plate, what with a comatose wife and all. At the end though, Barb asks what Matt plans on doing with the land, and it all seems like a setup just so Barb could get some inside info.

Page 102.

Scott, Elizabeth’s father, is coming to say his farewells to her, and he has to ask about the land deal? He’s saying GOODBYE to his DYING daughter. It’s FORCED in with the excuse that Scott is blaming Matt for being cheap, and that somehow if he would have bought Elizabeth a boat she would have never had her accident.

The problem with this, and the whole land deal talk in general is that it makes for a happy ending, when Matt chooses to preserve it, but doesn’t fit in with the rest of the story.

What’s the motivation for Barb needing to know?

How could having her own boat have prevented Elizabeth’s accident when she wasn’t even the one driving in the first place?

If it’s going to be an important part of the story, it needs to be more than just a quick cash windfall for the cousins. It has to affect every person on the island. That way when people ask about it, we know WHY they’re asking and causing additional drama for Matt.

Page 109.

Matt decides to keep the land.

The problem with that decision, he has no real reason to do so.

It’s a toss up, since there’s no clear cut incident that leads to his decision. It just comes to him, as do most of his main plot decisions, out of the blue.

Did he do it to spite Brian?

Or is it a feel good ending that we kind of think he’s keeping it because the girls had one or two good times there with Elizabeth?

Unfortunately, he’s just as clueless with what they’re going to do with it as he seems initially.

He more or less just kicks the can down the road.

Tying Things In

Brian is Elizabeth’s lover, who was also the real estate agent who stood to gain the most by Matt and cousins selling the land to a local developer.

That was interesting, and a good example of maximizing conflict with character relationships.

The other thing I liked was Matt buys, and then throws out, post cards with Alexandra on it. (She’s a model like her mother.) He tells the clerk she’s “underage” and that they shouldn’t be for sale in a hospital.

SADLY, he only does it that one time, and it’s a plot device that should have been carried throughout the whole story so despite how he interacts with his daughters we know that deep down he cares for them.

Good Plot

I liked Matt’s backstory, about how he and his family came to own the land that they do around Hawaii.

Also very interesting that things just kept getting worse for him. No sooner had he found out that his wife is dying, then he also discovers she was cheating on him and planning on filing for a divorce.

During his “all is lost moment” it’s funny how Matt turns to Sid, Alex’s male “friend,” for advice.

Lastly, and probably my favorite plot device, Matt’s overall goal is to keep Scottie and Alex grounded despite all the wealth he’s inherited. Unfortunately, he only succeeds in alienating them which results in their flawed nature.

3.) Quality of Characters

Matt, Alex, Scottie, and Sid were all odd.

Problem was they weren’t odd in unique ways.

Did they act normal? Absolutely not, but it wasn’t abnormal in an interesting way.

Scottie and Alex started out interesting in how messed up they were, but the further I read the more annoyed I became with them. The one thing I kept thinking was how I hope my own two daughters don’t talk to me that way some day.

Matt was the most likeable, in that I felt bad for him that he was more or less the heel of the story.

He needed to arc more with the girls, though. We go from him being a bad father in the beginning, to them sharing ice cream on the couch at the end as a happy trio. Even the death of Elizabeth doesn’t seem to be a true glue that will bring them together, and confronting Brian is too minor a victory, if you can even call it that.

4.) Dialogue and Description

Page 2:

MATT (V.O.)
My friends on the mainland think just
because I live in Hawai’i, I live in
paradise. Like a permanent vacation –
we’re all just out here drinking maitais,
shaking our hips, and catching
waves. Are they nuts? How can they
possibly think our families are less
screwed up, our heart attacks and
cancers less fatal, our grief less
devastating? Hell, I haven’t been on a
surfboard in fifteen years.

MATT (V.O.)
For the last 23 days, I’ve been living
in a “paradise” of IVs and urine bags
and endotracheal tubes and six-monthold
US magazines. Paradise. Paradise
can go fuck itself.

This script started on such a high note for me with this little nugget of dialogue.

It was great, and set the tone for Matt’s thoughts and some of what he says.

Too bad it more or less went down hill from there. (Not a good thing on page 2, lol.)

Sure the girls said things in “the most unique way possible,” but it didn’t add anything to the story and was shocking for the sake of being shocking.

Most of the dialogue was hollow, like this apology from page 90:

ALEXANDRA
You’ll think of something. You’re a
lawyer.

ALEXANDRA
I’m the one who sucked you in. I’m the
one who knew.

It felt devoid of any feeling.

The description however was surprisingly good.

Where that “fuck paradise” tone carried through was with Matt’s actions and thoughts.

Page 5:

Matt stares aghast at this specimen called his daughter.

Page 22:

Organ donation? Forgot about that one.

Page 88:

Matt looks around the room, alienated from everything — from the fried food and the tourists, from the umbrellas in the drinks, from his daughters enjoying the music and this cretin called Sid.

Why can’t a nuclear bomb blow the whole island up right now?

When taken in context, Matt’s reactions make PERFECT sense, and it saves time writing these kinds of “unfilmables.” Presenting ourselves through a unique tone will score us points with professional readers.

5.) Format

It had scene numbers and some other stuff we don’t need to do for specs, but overall there wasn’t much wrong.

The only odd thing I made note of was on page 48. All the dialogue was suddenly “Off Camera.” I don’t think it was meant to be since the characters were actually doing things as they talked.

6.) What can this script teach us?

Give them just enough money to do something, but not enough money to do nothing.

This is the philosophy that Matt’s dad used that made Matt a go-getter.

It’s good advice, and something Matt wanted to instill in his daughters.

What we should take away though is that in addition to money, kids also need a bit of attention and love.

7.) What, if anything, should we avoid emulating?

This one I’m not so sure on.

I don’t know where this script went terribly wrong for me, especially when I look at the scores on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes.

Maybe I’m missing something, or dark comedy just isn’t my thing, but the script was underwhelming.

Perhaps George Clooney’s delivery was something along the lines of this, that salvaged the whole thing.

The biggest concern I want you to take away is to make sure your plot works, and that the subplot ties in.

Get us from point A to B in a logical manner, don’t just make things happen because you want them to.

Rating: Read this if you want to know how NOT to have your children talk to you.

Today’s script is something a lot of people have been excited about.

The script alone has been one of the more sought after so far this year. (Especially when you take it down until the movie comes out and have people blast you with emails asking to put it back up.)

Can it live up to the hype, or will it end up an empty shell of what it once was, having the occasional reader come back to it, harvesting what resources he can?

Don’t forget to check out the script here.

1.) Marketability of the Idea

Sci-fi movie, so it’s got my attention at least, and as one smart fella told me, there’s a trend growing in Hollywood to snatch up mid-budget sci-fi movies. (Although my hunch is that this leans more towards big budget, but people would still want to take a look.)

This is amped up by the fact that the setting is a post-apocalyptic world. For some reason, most of us are intrigued to see what life would be like after “the worst” happens.

A veteran assigned to extract Earth’s remaining resources begins to question what he knows about his mission and himself.

Logline is also decent, so long as you know or have a hint that it’s on Earth in a not-too-happy future, people will want to check it out.

(As evidenced by the number of downloads and popularity on this site.)

The idea’s worth exploring.

2.) Plot Stability

Most of the plot was interesting and a page turner.

We were wondering about the “aliens” enough in the beginning that when we reached the midpoint and Jack gets captured by them, I knew the structure of the story was solid.

The Backstory

One thing the writers did well, was teasing the backstory out.

Jack, the main character, gave a brief description at the beginning, telling his version. Aliens came to the planet, blew up the moon causing natural disasters wiping out most of the population, and then the remaining humans nuked the planet. Victory.

As the story progresses though, we begin to wonder if that’s 100% accurate.

Little things begin to happen.

A space shuttle reactivates, crashing to Earth, and the drones that are allegedly there to protect the remaining human population start firing on the shuttle survivors.

Jack manages to save one woman who keeps showing up in his dreams, and when he takes her to his home, Victoria, Jack’s partner and love interest, sedates the woman when she begins asking about Jack (without him knowing).

On top of that, Tet, the artificial moon that serves as the current new home for the human race, only contacts Victoria and Jack through text messages. No face time. No voice calls.

Finally when Jack is captured by the “aliens” he finds out they’re actually what’s left of the human population on Earth, and he’s told that Tet contains the true aliens. Apparently humans DIDN’T win the war.

But should Jack trust them? (Hard thing to answer, being that Beech is played by Morgan Freeman, who’s voice we’ve come to trust and admire.)

It’s also here where Beech gives Jack the opportunity to save the human race, and destroy the aliens once and for all, but can he do it?

Up to this point, everything was cool, and I was enjoying myself.

And then…

The Twist

*SPOILER*

(If you’ve not read the script, and don’t want the story ruined, best skip the rest of this review. Remember, I warned you…)

I literally boo’ed when I read what was going on.

Not just the twist, but how the writers drag it out. Jack sees this mysterious man working in a situation just like Jack does, but obscured by a swirl of smoke and a bandana around his face.

Then, OOPS, Jack’s looking at himself. He’s a clone!

Booooooooooooooo!

Hi. Moon called. They want their plot twist back.

The whole unique world was ruined by the lack of originality in the ending. Moon did it prior to this script AND did it better.

Having a character do a menial task, on a 5 year stint no less, all the while being lied to and replaced by a carbon copy of themselves? You can dress it up all you like with Sky Castles, and Bubbleships, and forbidden radioactive zones, but it’s still being a copy cat.

Now I know I might catch a lot of flack here, and I welcome a discussion on the topic, but I’m not sure “same plot, different setting” counts when people say, “Give me the same thing, only different.”

So they’re clones, and moving past the striking similarities to Moon, we’re not given enough for character conclusions and decisions to make sense. Almost as if they were trying so hard NOT to give things away that we weren’t given enough.

Garbled Transmission

Victoria replays a garbled transmission once Jack goes missing.

After breaking it down and descrambling it, she discovers it’s her talking to Jack.

The problem with this is we’re told it’s a “recording” and Victoria breaks down. I’m assuming now that it’s an exchange that never happened between our Jack and Victoria, but nothing gives us a clue to that. All we see is her breaking down, and could easily be interpreted that they’re growing apart as a couple.

We’re left thinking it’s a recording of something they said previously, but if so, why would she jump to the conclusion that they’re clones?

This leads her to a speech on page 88, right before she kills herself, where she tells Jack, “I think they made us.”

Later, when Jack meets Jack 2, it suddenly all makes sense, including Victoria’s last words. EXCEPT, it DOESN’T all make sense because there was no logical path from Point A to B.

If they are clones, there needs to be a few more early hints, maybe where Jack talks to Victoria 2, and then Victoria doesn’t remember that conversation. She can’t hear one transmission, then jump to the “logical” conclusion just because the authors need her too.

Original Jack and Victoria

There’s this odd bit at the end, where we see Jack and Victoria approaching Tet for the first time.

To signify what is happening they’re called “original” I guess signifying that these were who the clones are based off of.

I didn’t understand what was going on though. Julia, who we now know Jack was engaged to, is in a sleeping pod while Jack and Victoria are acting a bit too chummy as pilot and co-pilot.

Then they take this flirty picture and enter Tet to make first contact with the aliens. Jack rests his hand on Julia’s sleeping pod that feels more like, “See ya,” than, “I love you.”

Unfortunately, what was probably meant to explain some of the backstory instead had me wondering more about character relationships and motivations.

The Love Story

Following the point from above, Jack keeps having dreams about Julia, so when he finally finds her in the shuttle wreckage, he wants to do everything to help her.

And for the most part he does, practically sacrificing Victoria for her. (Sacrificed as I’m pretty sure Jack could have saved her in the Bubbleship if he really wanted to.)

Then an odd thing happens.

Jack rushes to Sky Tower 2, getting this healing salve to save Julia. There he meets Victoria 2, which is a younger version of his Victoria. He talks about how beautiful she is, in a way that suggests he wants his old life back and wants to stay with her.

It doesn’t make sense as he hated his old life, and was hoping to leave Victoria. He only seems to save Julia out of obligation.

Few Minor Things…

Julia has a child at the end, which in itself seems ridiculous. Delivering a baby in this setting is a bit silly.

Not to mention I was trying to figure out who got her pregnant. I’m assuming it was “Original” Jack, but it bugged me, especially when Jack 2 showed up after 3 years of wandering around, looking for his stolen bubbleship.

The other thing that bothered me was Tet, or at least Victoria needing it to keep visual tabs on Jack.

I get that the aliens were trying to keep the clones all separate from one another, but really, there’s no way to relay signals? Jack routinely gets into things he’s not supposed to, but the aliens don’t seem to care. You’d think they’d want Victoria to be able to keep a better eye on things, ensuring that clones don’t bump into each other.

Good Plot Point

Aside from the initial plot being good, there was one thing I wanted to talk about here as it’s been an issue in several of the paid reviews I’ve done.

Drone 166.

This drone appears throughout the entire story, tying it all together.

It’s the first drone we see Jack fix, and it’s hinted at being evil.

It’s also the drone that starts firing on the survivors of the shuttle, shown being evil.

Lastly, it chases Jack and Julia across the “radioactive zone” that leads him to discover he and Victoria are clones, as it wants to kill them. Evil.

My point being that this could easily have been a different drone each time, but there’s little payoff that way.

We as authors need to tie the entire story together, and I appreciated Drone 166′s role in urging the plot along.

3.) Quality of Characters

The two main characters were good.

Jack and Victoria had a nice Ying and Yang flow going.

She’s the responsible one, who loves him, looking forward to their future together on Mars, while he’s reckless and wants to stay behind to be the last person on Earth.

No problem there, and they both seemed very three dimensional.

The problem is with the supporting cast.

First is Julia, who doesn’t feel “real.” She goes back and forth between wanting to tell Jack who he is, and struggles with loving him. This pattern is mimicked again when she realizes he’s a clone. She is disgusted by that fact, then ends up living with Jack 2 at the end.

This behavior wouldn’t be bad if we knew what her motivations were. On a few occasions I wanted to scream, “What the hell do you want, lady?!”

Her story needed to be flushed out more, as the snippets of backstory weren’t enough to make us really care about her.

Beech and crew.

When they show up, it’s too short. They present a possible ending for the story and that’s it. They peace out and die as drones open fire on their secret base.

We’re given a scene at the end with Beech dying, where he convinces Jack to do what needs to be done, but I’m not sure I’d feel bad if I wasn’t imaging Morgan Freeman in a death scene.

Same was true for the other survivors in his posse. They were an opposition to Jack being trusted, and that was it.

In the end they didn’t really matter with what happens in the story, so it’s arguable if you even needed them to show up at all. Maybe Jack could have discovered for himself the twist, with the help of Julia, and decided to save the world.

4.) Dialogue and Description

Description

Was good.

This is one of the main reasons I enjoyed the script.

The fantastic, futuristic setting was clearly defined not to mention fantastic. This is a MUST when using a setting that exists only in the author’s mind. As authors we have to make it work for our readers, and the Sky Tower in the clouds was awesome, especially with all it’s little gadgets.

(One thing I didn’t like was the outdoor pool, and I’d argue the winds that high in the atmosphere wouldn’t make for a feasible swimming environment.)

The other thing the description did SPLENDIDLY was set up an enjoyable tone. This is another issue I’ve touch on in more recent paid reviews. We need to dress things up, even using the often controversial “unfilmable” to accomplish what we’re trying to get across.

Examples:

Page 17 – IT SHIFTS! A hundred tons of twisted metal just moved an inch above him. Best leave that alone…

We can see EXACTLY what Jack is doing and thinking with the “best leave that alone” line.

Page 17 – A moment, Jack hanging in space, gravity clawing at him, falling…

Gravity is an intangible thing, but it “clawing” helps us see that no matter how much he needs to fly across the chasm, gravity is ultimately going to win. Brief moment of suspense when we question whether he’ll make it or not.

Page 22 – He admits it with a glance. Offers no explanation.

Page 33 – It’s not the first time he’s done this, but she hates it every time.

And there were a decent number of other examples sprinkled throughout the script.

Dialogue

This portion was also good.

The first thing I’ll make note of is Jack’s dialogue, that lends to his careless, childlike nature. I enjoyed it, especially his dialogue when talking to Bob, the ship/rover.

Second, there was also a decent amount of subtext.

(Sorry, this part you’ll have to read for yourselves, since I can’t copy and paste. I’m making you work, OH NOES!)

Page 49 – Victoria drops hints about the necessity of being an “effective team.” This is hinted at in the rest of the script, but we learn why she’s so obsessed with it. Their success as a team will get them one of the first spots on the new Mars colony.

The beauty of this is, the term “effective team.” What does that mean? It’s an odd way of calling them a couple, but maybe it relates to a working relationship. We’re unsure, but it gets us wondering if they’re supposed to be lovers at all, which excites us to read and find out.

Page 68 – Beech tells Jack that life isn’t what it seems for him. Jack doesn’t believe it, so Beech asks him to remember his past, specifically one thing, “How did your mother smell?”

There could have been a long argument about this, but with one simple, and brilliant line of dialogue, Beech shows Jack that he’s right, even if it does take Jack the rest of the story to accept it.

That part was brilliant.

5.) Format

Page 3 has a cool “morning ritual” montage. Check that out if you have questions about formatting montages for your own script. It was easy to follow and helped give us the setting for our story.

Around page 15 I got bored with the “we this, we that” type angles going on. They made for cool visuals, but anytime I read “we” it reminded me I’m not really there with the characters or what’s happening to them.

Lastly, typos started showing up more frequently towards the end. Almost as if the writers were in a hurry to wrap things up before page 109. On page 86 there are two in back to back sentences.

Ship grid to a stop…

Jack leans to checks on Julia…

Most of them seemed to be simple noun/verb agreement.

Not a huge deal, true, but an easily remedied problem.

6.) What can this script teach us?

Setting up a good tone.

As I mentioned, the description of the fantastic setting helped me enjoy this script. In fact, I smiled when I saw the little unfilmables that explained completely what was going on, and in a unique way.

In my own recent scripts, I’ve made it a point to focus more on this, which has helped, because even as I hear that dreaded “PASS” I’m still often told that the style of my writing was enjoyable.

If anything, creating a unique and interesting tone will allow a reader to get from page 1 to the end of your story, and that in itself is a BIG STEP in the write direction. (See what I did there?)

7.) What, if anything, should we avoid emulating?

Do your homework.

Yes there will be similar ideas floating around, but too similar is BAD. If the big twist of your story is one that’s already been done, what else can you come up with? Can you take that twist to the next level? Playing off the existing work, will making the opposite happen be a cooler new twist?

When we challenge ourselves we can achieve great things, but taking the easy way out seldom takes us someplace worthwhile.

Rating: Read this to learn about interesting script tone. (Alternately – Read it if you ever wondered what Moon would have been like with a bigger budget.)

I wanted to take a break from reviews today, and present an idea that I’ve been wanting to discuss for some time.

Lately, I’ve had quite a few more requests on my most recent script, so now was as good a time as any. You know I’m not that smart, so the genre of it being a contained thriller is a logical solution for the increased traffic.

Most of you know my theory, that given the current economy, Hollywood folks are wary of spending millions of dollars to make a movie, especially if it’s from an unknown writer. With this in mind, we should be making every attempt to write a great story on as limited a budget as possible.

“But Hank,” you say, “I should be writing the story I want to tell.” And that’s true, BUT only if you’re content with being the only one reading it. (Alright, your friends and family will read it too.)

If you want to see it on the big screen, it’s time you realized that you’re selling a product, your script, and it needs to be something a customer, an agent/producer, is interested in or they aren’t buying.

Start with one location.

Are any of the ideas you’re kicking around upstairs able to be set there? Can you pull off your story with just two locations? Is the drama and the suspense enough to encourage interest without the necessity of crazy special effects?

A while back I suggested the “crazy” idea that, as screenwriters on a journey, it would be good practice for us to write a script in a contained setting. Good or bad result, it didn’t matter, this was one more step toward being a better writer.

That idea was met with some resistance.

“That’s a lot of time to invest on practice,” was the general answer.

Aren’t we serious about learning? Are we expecting maximum gains for minimum effort? If the exercise makes us better writers, isn’t that time well spent, regardless of the result?

Focusing on dialogue and conflict, without fancy effects or faraway settings, isn’t a bad thing to try. We need to think outside the box, especially if we’re trying to reduce costs and look more appealing to buyers.

Scared shitless, and not sure where to start?

Don’t worry. Your old pal Hank is here for you, and FINALLY ready to get to the point of this article.

The Twilight Zone

This notion came to me over the Twilight Zone marathon run during New Years.

After watching a few episodes I was fascinated by Rod Serling’s genius.

Most of what I was watching was done with limited budgets, and very few locations. (Hmmm, wasn’t someone just talking about that?)

As I watched those few episodes, my mind started wandering off on tangents. What if the characters did this? That is cool, but what if the reverse happened somewhere else? Nice twist, but could this work better?

Am I saying to watch old episodes and just update the setting? Absolutely not, BUT this is a classic case of “give me the same thing, only different.”

Most ideas can be traced or related to others, especially in storytelling, so what I’m suggesting is do a bit of recreational research, and perhaps some new, contained ideas will blossom in that budding mind of yours.

As you watch, be sure to ask yourself, “Can I take this idea and make it my own WITHOUT it costing over $1 million?”

I’ll go over a few episodes, and give you examples of how to make it your own.

Stopover in a Quiet Town

Plot

A married couple wake up in an unknown house. They’re unsure where they are, and the only thing they know is that they drank entirely too much the night before.

They begin to search the house for the owners, but something is off. The house isn’t real, almost like a model home with fake appliances. They’re startled initially, but head out in search of other houses and people.

Outside, everything is quiet, save for a girl’s giggling. They rush to stores, churches, anywhere, but no sign of the girl or anyone else, only the laughing. On top of that, nothing is as real, everything from trees, grass, cars, all of it fake.

In the end they’re driven mad, only to find out that the little girl laughing is really a giant alien who’s father picked up the couple on his last trip to Earth.

So how can we make this our own?

This story in particular really got the wheels turning in my head.

What if the man and woman weren’t a couple? What if they’re two strangers in a strange house? Would they trust each other, or would each misstep only force them further apart? What if their survival depended on each other?

On a different note, what if this wasn’t an entire town? What if they woke up in some random cabin, in the middle of the woods? There’s lots of ways to take that (and some writers probably already have) and make it work in a variety of genres.

Then there’s the final twist. What if, instead of an alien, the couple is being watched behind the scenes, by some sort of studio audience, almost like a thriller version of The Truman Show? (I especially like this one, as who hasn’t wondered from time to time if they’re not part of some studio experiment like that?)

The Midnight Sun

Plot

The Earth is drifting closer and closer to the sun.

Things are hot, and becoming unbearable. The story centers around two women, one of which is a painter, who continues to paint pictures of the city on fire. As the only two left in their building, and tensions increasing, the older woman asks her to paint something else, something cool.

She does, but they’re interrupted by an intruder. He forces his way in and drinks what little water they have left. He then goes on to explain how hard things are outside, how he lost his family, and that he isn’t really a bad guy. They ask him to leave, and as the heat crescendos everything melts.

The twist is that the painter has been dreaming during an extreme fever which has finally broke. She should be okay, but outside the world is headed in the wrong direction and things are getting colder and colder as the distance to the sun increases.

Make it our own

This one’s easy.

Instead of heat, what if it’s a plague, famine, natural disaster, etc. Anything that would cause a mass evacuation of a city, or greatly reduce the population.

Then instead of two women, what if we used a married couple? Better yet, we can take it from an angle similar to the looter. Show characters doing what they need to, to survive.

Or perhaps the married couple lost a child, and now one wants to go on, and the other doesn’t.

Lastly, the twist. Finding an idea that can be the exact opposite of what is happening earns extra credit with readers. For instance, taking that last example of having one character give up. Just as all hope is lost and the deed done, an army truck rolls in ready to administer some sort of cure and end everyone’s suffering.

Time Enough at Last

I mention this episode as it stars Burgess Meredith. (Not to mention it was also referenced in a Family Guy episode of Peter’s last brain cell.)

Plot

A bookworm of a man has trouble relating to people. All he wants to do is read.

One day, during lunch, he shuts himself in the bank vault so he won’t be disturbed as he reads. A loud explosion erupts outside knocking him unconscious.

He awakes and find everything and everyone either dead or gone, due to a nuclear blast. He’s completely alone, and that fact begins to take his toll on him.

Just when he’s ready to check out, he discovers the public library is still intact. Oh what joy! He has everything he’s ever wanted.

Then the twist. He breaks his glasses which he is practically blind without. Just like that, his dreams are dashed to shouts of, “It’s not fair!”

Make it our own

Similar to the last example, we can easily sub in a different disaster. We can even give the character a different dream or desire that is fulfilled, albeit for only a short time. Personally I think this is too close, and borderline being a copycat.

Solution? Make the plot more complex. Put an obstacle in the way. Maybe some digging needs to be done to reach the objective. Maybe there’s another person guarding the only source of food require to live.

The addition of one more character isn’t the same as adding a location. Not to mention the plot possibilities increase exponentially. Movies of just one character are hard to keep interesting, and luckily Burgess is only alone for around half the episode.

Can you come up with a disaster where one character tries to get everything they’ve ever wanted?

The Eye of the Beholder

Plot

Being one of the better known episodes, a woman is coming out of surgery. Her face is covered by gauze, and the doctors are obscured in the shadows.

She keeps asking how the surgery went, as she is “not normal,” and when the gauze is removed the doctors and nurses are appalled.

She’s attractive, even by today’s standards, so we’re confused.

Then the doctors and nurses turn around. They have pig faces, and her being unlike them is why she’s shunned.

The twist at the end has her go away with another man afflicted with the “not normal” condition, where they live in a community of outcasts.

(This even spawned a Saturday Night Live spoof with Pam Anderson.)

Sorry “embed disabled” on this on, so you need to click the link.

Make it our own

Why did I bring up this one? Essentially I just wanted to include the Pam Anderson skit.

Just kidding, sort of, but this is a GREAT example of drawing out tension with just conflict and dialogue. The suspense of the woman not being normal, only to show us she is normal, but it’s the world’s that’s different, that’s what this whole exercise should be about.

In closing…

If you’re not sold on devoting an entire screenplay to just a writing exercise, that’s your call.

What I would suggest however is watch a few episodes of The Twilight Zone and see what your creative mind can come up with. If not a contained thriller, it might give you your next great idea, or break “the block” and give you a scene that connects that plot you’ve been stuck on allowing you to finally complete your screenplay.

Lastly, and I saved the best for alst, over 100+ episodes are available on Netflix via their streaming service. That’s 100+ opportunities to discover the low budget idea that will break you into the big time.

And really, if you don’t have a Netflix membership as a screenwriter by now, what are you waiting for?

It’s funny that in all the screenwriting classes I’ve taken or been a part of, this movie is always referenced.

I say that it’s funny, because never once was the script offered to read during the discussion. Only after we started this site did I find out how hard it was to find.

The idea of the movie is what was taught, and although I think it was done well, can the script convey that message, or will dead scripts tell bad tales?

Don’t forget to check out the script here.

1.) Marketability of the Idea

This question is great to have for this particular movie.

It’s a movie based on a theme park attraction.

Let that sink in for a moment.

A six minute ride will be stretched out to a ninety minute movie.

To say I was skeptical before seeing it in the theaters is an understatement. I was even more so when I heard Johnny Depp was the lead actor. I mean Edward Scissorhands playing a pirate? This is going to be silly.

What I was expecting was more of a movie like Haunted House ended up. Luckily what we got is one of the most successful movie franchises of all time. (And Mr. Depp got what he always HATED, a reoccurring, high concept role being backed by a profit-driven corporation.)

But the script came before the movie, so forgetting hindsight, what were its chances?

It’s a pirate movie, and that will catch people’s interest. Plus the logline leads to a deeper story than the Disney park ride deals with, so I’m sure people were willing to at least take a look.

2.) Plot Stability

Overall the plot’s good.

I’ll talk more about what makes the plot unique in the “The More You Know” portion of the review, but the main point here is that we had little, if any, downtime.

I’d argue that some parts were borderline episodic, but the writers always seemed to include just enough plot to pull us back in.

There were a few differences from the script to final movie though.

The first one was good, in that Elizabeth catches a glimpse of the Black Pearl as a child in the beginning. This let us know who attacked Will’s ship from the get go, and gave us a taste of the mystery to come.

The others were all bad.

Jack’s boat doesn’t sink before he gets to the dock, it just takes on water. (We lose an element of the “do you think he plans it all out or just makes it up as he goes along” part that is his character.)

A lot of the mystery is lost from Captain Jack as we get too much of a back story about him, including the fact that he was a cartographer from England and too honest to be a pirate.

On page 81, Will and Elizabeth have too mushy an encounter that just goes on too long and takes focus away from the characters we really care about.

Norrington gives up on Elizabeth before the movie’s over, and “his love for her” is what prompts him to go save Will, even though he “releases” her from his marriage proposal PRIOR to going to fetch the fella she’ll end up with. Problem here is it doesn’t feel true to his character, and is better left for the end of a story anyway.

Lastly, and a big problem with the whole “blood for gold” thing is Jack NEVER returns the coin he stole to the chest BEFORE Will drops his in. He still shoots and kills Barbossa, but doesn’t return the coin until after he dies. I was left scratching my head wondering how that worked. (Or at least why they needed Will in the first place.)

There is one small fact I’ll mention before we leave this section. Out of nowhere came this Christian/Holy Bible message near the end. Barbossa crossing himself, the good Lord providing things for Jack, it didn’t fit, and took away from the story. I’m not saying religion has no place in movies or storytelling, but we need to know when and where it’s appropriate. Here it felt forced, especially since it showed up so late in the ballgame.

3.) Quality of Characters

All of the characters are drawn well, both in the script and the movie.

Perhaps seeing the movie first lent some of the life to the characters in the script, but I didn’t hate anyone’s presence, and enjoyed them as I read.

The biggest problem I had was setting Jack up in this “honest man stuck being a pirate” role. Gibbs and Will both refer to it, and that’s why he was marooned on island and bad at pirating.

It felt too forced. The beautiful thing about Jack Sparrow is we DON’T KNOW if he’s going to do the noble thing. The makes for a stronger character who’s unpredictability makes for a more interesting plot.

This part, I didn’t like.

4.) Dialogue and Description

If I were scoring both of these with points, they’d be high marks.

Description was well done, especially given some of the more intricate action scenes. Also, character descriptions were kept short, but true to who characters were.

Page 1:

JOSHAMEE GIBBS, who was born old, skin a dark leather…

Page 33:

Elizabeth slams the double doors shut, throws the bolts. The
interior shutters are closed over the windows. Above the
fireplace are two crossed swords.

Elizabeth climbs on the firebox; she grabs one of the swords
by the hilt and pulls — but it won’t come free. Both swords
are securely attached to the wall. Damn!

Not only did I see what I was supposed to see, but I FELT what the characters were feeling. That sort of empathy is a great boost to our writing when we can make it happen.

Then there were times where the dialogue and description worked flawlessly together.

Page 26:

JACK
You need to find yourself a girl.
(Will sets his jaw)
Or maybe the reason you practice
three hours a day is you’ve found
one — but can’t get her?

A direct hit — and Will coils even more tightly with anger.

Making the “direct hit” an expression on Will’s face works better than any line of dialogue can as a reaction. (As shown perhaps by the line that follows and takes away from the above line of description.)

Most of the dialogue was good. Both catchy at times and filled with subtext during others.

Page 2:

NORRINGTON
Think again, Miss Swann. Vile and
dissolute creatures, the lot of
them. I intend to see to it that
any man who sails under a pirate
flag, or wears a pirate brand, gets
what he deserves: a short drop and
a sudden stop.

Elizabeth doesn’t know what a ‘short drop and a sudden stop’
means. Gibbs helpfully mimes: a man being hung.

Page 13:

MULLROY
There’s no *real* ship as can match
the Interceptor.

MULLROY
(turns back to Jack)
Like I said, there’s no real ship
as can match — Hey!

Although I think we should avoid overusing a back and forth of this nature, in the proper circumstance, the comedic relief it offers is worth the risk.

Page 20:

NORRINGTON (CONT’D)
Taking stock: you’ve got a pistol
with only one shot, a compass that
doesn’t point north … and no
ship. You are without a doubt the
worst pirate I have ever heard of.

JACK
Ah, but you have heard of me.

Subtext was very much alive in this script also, but it may have had some help. Most of it is found when talking about the societal class structure and how Elizabeth is in direct opposition to it.

Page 2:

SWANN
Captain Norrington… I appreciate
your fervor, but I am concerned
about the effect this subject will
have on my daughter.

SWANN
And that’s what concerns me.
Elizabeth, we will be landing in
Port Royal soon, and beginning our
new lives. Wouldn’t it be wonderful
if we comport ourselves as befits
our class and station?

Page 9:

WILL
I could never forget it, Miss Swann.

WILL
At least once more, Miss Swann.
As always.

That last line being a particular favorite of mine because it speaks volumes of their relationship.

There were the occasional bad parts. On page 52, Norrington says the same line back to back. Also around page 93, Elizabeth launches into this story about the Pirates of the Caribbean theme song and why she likes it. (Here’s a fun fact, Miss Swann, we don’t care.)

Overall though, this portion particularly shows why screenwriting classes are quick to discuss this story.

5.) Format

The format was good. That’s even considering that I received the script in some formatted text file that I didn’t understand. My thanks to Joe, as he fixed it up and help bring it to this site for your viewing pleasure. (Thanks Joe!)

6.) What can this script teach us?

Sure, there’s a lot we can learn.

The main part I’m going to focus on here though, is having fun with a story.

Captain Jack especially lights up the page when he shows up. We want to know what he’s doing, saying, all of it. When he gets into predicaments, it’s fun to watch him get out.

As cheesy as it sounds, the writers captured the fun we have on the ride and had it translate into the movie. Is it the same fun? Not exactly, but it’s still a childlike wonder we can’t help but smile at.

Whether it’s making a joke about a dog never moving in a jail cell, or taking a small drop on a waterfall, it’s action done the “Disney way” where we’re laughing even as people are getting shot at or ducking sword slashes.

That’s what we need to strive for in our scripts, and a simple lesson to come away with.

Have fun with your story.

If you’re enjoying it as you write it, you’ve just upped the chances that a reader will enjoy it too.

7.) What, if anything, should we avoid emulating?

The BACKSTORY.

Leave a bit to mystery, especially when you establish such a great character like Captain Jack Sparrow. Leave a little bad with the good, so we’re guessing if he’ll choose to be the hero or be self serving.

I wanted to puke as Gibbs was talking to Will about who Jack was and how he lost the Pearl, because he was ruining the story for me.

Characters being unpredictable can be a writer’s ally, so we need to make use of it, especially when creating strong, memorable characters.

Rating: Definite read if you’re just learning the How to’s of screenwriting.

So I’ve yet to see this movie, but how can I not know about it right?

Silver Linings Playbook seems to be that Cinderella story at awards shows this year, capturing our love of rooting for the underdog, in more ways than one.

How’s the script though?

Can this screenplay catch this reviewers interest, or will it be awarded the Oscar for “Most Hype?”

Don’t forget you can check out the script here.

1.) Marketability of the Idea

Two words.

Based on.

After those two words is an even more important part. It’s based on a novel, so that means there’s already an existing audience for this project.

Not to mention the actual story.

The hero was in a mental institution for beating up his wife’s lover. That fact alone will get me curious as to how he found out and also what his state of mind is now that he’s getting out.

Throw in the love story of another “down on her luck” supporting role, and folks will definitely want to take a look.

2.) Plot Stability

The plot was good. Predictable in a lot of ways, but a nice story.

It starts out with Pat’s mom getting him out of the hospital, and he’s not exactly fixed, but he’s trying to improve himself.

The story revolves around him trying to become worthy enough to win Nikki, his cheating ex-wife, back.

Along the way, he’s introduced to Tiffany, who has her own issues going on since her husband died in a car accident.

The two form an odd sort of bond, and when Tiffany agrees to slip Nikki a note, she’s got Pat’s full attention. (He’s not allowed to contact her due to a restraining order.)

Over the course of the story Tiffany falls for Pat, and Pat begins to stick up and enjoy Tiffany’s company.

All nice. All warm hearted.

The better part that gives this story a unique feel is through the storyline of Pat and his father. His father is OCD, perhaps not diagnosed, and tries to bond with Pat through Philadelphia sports, that he also is betting on, hoping to win enough to open his own restaurant.

The parts I didn’t really like, because they were too predictable, were Tiffany writing the letter, Tiffany and Pat getting the EXACT score they needed at the dance competition, and Pat ultimately choosing Tiffany over his ex-wife who he’s been obsessed with the entire script.

Since most readers/viewers now come to expect twists, to throw them off, we should almost have one or two of those “twists” not be twists at all.

For instance, Pat realizes Tiffany wrote the letter, and it turns out that she did. But what if he thought she wrote it, and that influences him to develop feelings for her and not Nikki? Then by introducing Nikki at the dance competition, he’s presented with what he’s always wanted. Now it’s a real emotional issue for the story (CONFLICT!!!) and leaves us guessing right until the very end. (Since we, like Pat, also assumed Tiffany wrote the letter, but now maybe Nikki isn’t so bad after all.)

Just a thought, but we can’t leave reader interest to chance. Predictable shares too close a line with boring, and that’s very murky water to go wading into.

The other problem was there were a lot of filler scenes where I wasn’t sure what was going on. Some of this had to do with the formatting and scene headings, but I didn’t understand what the point of the scenes were. I guess if I had to venture a guess I’d say it’s to show Pat’s still a bit unstable, but in all fairness this is pretty apparent by how he interacts with the other characters.

Lastly, I liked how Danny kept showing up. He was comedic relief, and after it’s set up initially that he gets out of the hospital pretty easy (but always gets caught later) it leaves you wondering how secure a facility they’re running down in Baltimore.

3.) Quality of Characters

Pat, Tiffany, Pat Sr. and Danny are all well done.

Everyone else? Well, I can’t remember them without looking honestly.

Which brings up a bit of a side note. Two supporting roles were Ronnie and Randy. A few spots they were even in the story together, and it was odd, since I wasn’t sure if the author even had “who is who” right. It was confusing, so remember to avoid using too common or similar sounding character names.

What I liked about Pat was that he obviously wasn’t a stable person, but he was genuinely trying to work on it.

This fact was reflected in the character of Pat Sr. who I mentioned was very OCD. From the way he arranged his remote controls, to the special way he required other characters to sit and watch a football game, none of it was normal.

This worked because Pat Sr. didn’t really think anything was wrong with him. Despite being banned from the Eagles stadium for fighting, he thought he was just as normal as everyone else. He didn’t want to work on himself the way Pat wanted to.

It also works because he’s a good character, sticking up for his son and trying to make things better. So his zany antics worked and made for memorable scenes.

Tiffany and Pat worked also, since they weren’t normal, and came to terms with it.

The things they said, their actions, it made them interesting, and by trying to help each other through things, via the dance competition, they helped each other work towards normality.

Lastly, as I mentioned above, Danny was a funny character with his own funny quirks that spiced scenes up, and broke up what could have been a monotonous script.

4.) Dialogue and Description

Both were pretty bad.

The dialogue had a few gems, but I have to be honest, if I didn’t know this was an Oscar nominated story I wouldn’t give it much of a shot with a professional reader.

There were problems especially when you take both the description and dialogue in unison. The author was a HUGE fan of breaking up dialogue to be finished after something happened.

Page 7:

DOLORES’S CAR SWERVES TOWARD THE LANE AGAIN. A PASSING CAR HONKS AND SWERVES TO AVOID DOLORES’S CAR.

DOLORES
(voice over)
…wheel!

And stuff like this happens multiple times throughout the script. Not only are the scene headings in the way, but do we need the dialogue broken up this many times and so frequently? I’d argue no, since it led to confusion, and overusing a technique takes away the punch it’s supposed to pack.

Default to that bit of advise I’ve found fits many a situation:

“Use sparingly, and where appropriate.”

Page 10:

A FRAMED PHOTO OF PAT’S BROTHER JAKE ON THE WALL. PAN TO
EMPTY SPACE WHERE ANOTHER FRAME HUNG –

RANDY
No, I don’t touch them. As a matter
of fact, I don’t know why you need
so many. Hey, there she is! Look
how beautiful!

There was A LOT going on here.

I think the intent was to establish a sort of shot, coming into Pat’s parents’ house.

The problem is we’re told about a missing picture (and if we’re told about it this picture must be important, right?) but then we go into this argument about touching something between Pat Sr. and Randy.

Personally, I assumed it was the pictures Randy was touching, but turns out to be the remotes. Now this discussion is important because it establishes Pat Sr.’s character “flaws” early on, but what about the picture? I’m still confused what picture was missing from the wall, although I assume it’s Pat and Nikki’s wedding picture.

Breaking up the dialogue only led to more confusion, and even if WE, as authors, know what we’re talking about in our stories, we better make it crystal clear for our readers.

Page 30:

PAT
Ronnie! Pat.

PAT
Thank you.

Really? There was a lot of this “ho, hum” dialogue that didn’t add anything.

Read this over again, they said “hello” like 3 times.

Part of this was, I think, to establish the uncomfortable feelings Ronnie has about how he should treat Pat, but again, use a bit of subtext. That uncomfortable feeling could easily have been accomplished using a trimmer version of the line that follows this exchange, where Ronnie apologizes for not visiting.

Another example of repetition from page 37:

PAT (CONT’D)
Tremendous. Tremendous.

RONNIE
Yeah, but you know what? No
disrespect, it’s not personal, but
this is the time to strike.

Few things happening here, and folks might argue saying it’s subtext, BUT I didn’t realize this until later, and through other interactions. At the time I read this I didn’t understand what Ronnie and Pat were even talking about. So are scenes like this even needed if I’m getting the info later?

First, Ronnie’s marriage isn’t the best, and two Ronnie’s doing well, while Pat Sr. isn’t and I THINK they work(ed) for the same company.

Again, subtext should be understood without being specific. We, as writers, don’t want to spell it out for our readers, but we MUST have the reader come away knowing what we need them to know for later in the story. If they don’t, we need to redo it.

Page 138:

DANNY
Hey, Pat, Tiffany!

PAT
Yeah, yeah. All right, buddy, I’ll
see you. Alright. Wish me luck,
man.

Hey there. Hi there. Ho there.

Unless your script is based on a successful book, don’t write dialogue like this.

There were good parts though.

Page 16:

PAT PACES IN HIS PARENTS BEDROOM.

PAT SR.
Yeah, have Ernest Hemingway call us
and apologize to us, too.

Usually, we’re generally told to avoid monologues, but here it works. Serves as a great way to establish who Pat is with this rant.

He’s mad about how the book turns out, on the surface he says because the world’s got enough bad stuff in it, BUT what he’s NOT saying (SUBTEXT!!!) is that this story is potentially how things could end with Nikki. He wants the happy ending with her, but Hemingway presents an alternate possibility.

Page 125:

TIFFANY
The first night that Pat and I met
at my sister’s, the Eagles beat the
Forty Niners handily, forty to
twenty-six. The second time we got
together we went for a run and the
Phillies beat the Dodgers seven to
five in the NLCS.

TIFFANY
I did my research.

Tiffany doesn’t like sports. Pat wants to be a good luck charm for his dad.

Tiffany knows this, but also likes spending time with Pat. She does her homework on things she doesn’t like and finds that getting what she wants actually helps Pat Sr.

She doesn’t come right out and say, “I want to hang out with Pat.” She implies that spending time with her will be in Pat Sr.’s best interests, which secretly gets her what she wants. (More SUBTEXT!!!)

5.) Format

Don’t read this script if you need to learn proper formatting.

What was wrong:

A.) Description was all in caps.

B.) Scene headings were all over the place and confusion.

C.) Description also told us how characters were supposed to enter using “r” and “l.”

D.) Camera angles and views in description sometimes happened line after line.

E.) Page length was 161 pages.

Again, all these mistakes are FORGIVEN when you’ve got a built in audience from a novel backing you, but most of us can’t make these “rookie” mistakes.

I can’t stress this enough, make what we’re looking at, and even how we’re looking at it, as GENERAL and CLEAR as possible unless there’s some element that’s absolutely crucial to the plot of the story. If it’s crucial make it distinct.

6.) What can this script teach us?

Honestly? “Don’t give up.”

I’m not talking about the moral of the story, although that’s there too, but don’t give up on your script.

Even coming from a book, it took HUGE vision to read this script and say, “This will be one of the most successful movies of 2012.”

So we shouldn’t give up on our stories. If we believe enough in it and ourselves, sooner or later someone else will see the potential. It just takes getting knocked down enough times before someone finally helps us up and dusts us off.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t try to make the story the best we can make it, just that we’ve got to keep letting the world know about it.

(For some reason I thought of a certain script over at Amazon Studios with the initials FP, and a certain author who “toots” that script’s horn every chance he gets. Maybe it just takes the right producer to see that story’s potential.)

This script would also make for an interesting test of Hollywood Hypocrisy. Give it to a reader with zero knowledge about the script, let them read it, and see what they say. Nine of ten wouldn’t go past the first few pages, I’d argue, without saving, “Pass.” Then tell them it’s based on a novel and see how fast they move it up the food chain.

Crazy, I know, but that’s what we’re up against. Crappy existing franchises will always beat out great unknown stories because, crappy as they are, the audience is somewhat quantifiable and studios can have a decent idea of it will make money or not, regardless of the end product.

Sorry abut that tangent, and back to the point. Don’t give up on your story.

7.) What, if anything, should we avoid emulating?

The filler dialogue.

As I said, there was a lot of back and forth that felt like saying the same thing over and over and over. Or as I read dialogue, I wanted to scream, “I DON’T CARE!”

With a script already up there in page length, we need to trim the fat anyway we can, and I think a lot of that fat could have come from redundant dialogue used in unnecessary scenes.

Rating: Read this if you’re too lazy to read the novel.

Taking a look today at Olympus Has Fallen.

Didn’t know much about this script or movie until I recently saw the commercials (I really need to get out more), but it looked interesting.

Will Mike Banning be able to save our interest AND the president in this 116 page script?

Don’t forget you can download the script here.

1.) Marketability of the Idea

It’s an action movie.

The logline for which is:

Disgraced former Presidential guard Mike Banning finds himself trapped inside the White House in the wake of a terrorist attack; using his inside knowledge, Banning works with national security to rescue the President from his kidnappers.

With that said, we should expect a lot of explosions, fight scenes, and weapons/vehicles.

This sort of movie hits a few demographics, especially when we include the “disgraced” adjective that suggests Mike will have a shot at redemption.

2.) Plot Stability

Was the plot stable? Sure.

Did it keep me guessing? Yep.

HUGE ISSUE.

It was Die Hard in the White House.

I’m sure I’m not the only one to think and/or suggest that, but I couldn’t get that thought out of my head as I read the script. In fact I wasn’t thinking Mike Banning, I was reading the story as if John McClane were in it.

This fact lends more to originality (which isn’t a question) and didn’t really hurt the story, but it easily could have been the new Die Hard movie instead of the Russian one.

A few things the script did well.

Around page 53, we learn Kang (the main villain) is after Cerberus codes.

What are they?

It’s handled in quick exposition, but we also need to know who has them. Instead of another character just telling us, we get to see Kang threaten to kill the individuals he knows have them. Very cool, as it gave us the info we need in a dramatic and original way.

There needs to be three codes though, and a good twist happens at the end, when the president gives up his code. He knows Kang needs all 3 and Asher, the president, thinks he has him, because Kang killed the Secretary of Defense, BUT WAIT, who walks through the door back from the dead? That’s right, the secretary of defense, and SHE gave up her code thinking the second fella died without giving his up.

OH NOES!!!!

This brings up another cool thing I enjoyed about the plot.

Kang always seemed to be one step ahead of the good guys, which made for some cool tension. Just when we thought things were going to go well, Kang throws a wrench in the plans and hostages die or a new threat is unleashed.

Lastly, and I won’t ruin it, is the North Korean plane plot twist. Just when we thought the White House was safe…

That part caught me unawares, and surprising a reader is ALWAYS a good thing. (I guess I should add in “as long as it fits in the plot.”)

Two things that need fixed

The first HUGE plot point, which the script revolves around, is Mike’s saving the first lady.

They’re all snowmobiling, but her’s has an engine failure on a frozen lake outside Camp David. Of course the ice breaks and she falls through. Mike jumps right in after her though, and fishes her out.

In the end she dies and it’s ruled an “accident.” Not sure how this completely disgraces him though, as he did all he could.

For this to work, there should have been something more, like make it HIS fault she fell in or got stuck. The idea I had was to have Connor, the president’s son, fall into the lake. Then when Banning has to discharge his weapon under the ice to get Connor back out, BANG, the first lady catches a stray bullet in the gut.

Now THAT’S an “accident” that will disgrace someone.

The second thing that didn’t work was the Hydra weapon.

HUGE build up to it. Bad guys setting it up in secret, dramatic hydraulic lifts opening slowly, characters saying things like, “Oh noes, not Hydra!”

Then what was it? Some lame automated machine gun.

Sure it did a lot of damage, but the way everyone was going on about it, I expected something A LOT bigger and cooler and even an uber plot twist.

After it tears a helicopter or two apart, Banning shuts the doors on it and it destroys itself. It was the one convenient and easy plot point in the story that left A LOT of potential wasted.

3.) Quality of Characters

Most of them were “meh.”

Kang I’ve already said was pretty cool, and everything a bad guy should be. Calm, collected, slightly insane.

He made for a good show, especially always being one step ahead.

The others blended together, like the random Secret Service guys and government officials.

Mike Banning was more or less a watered down version of John McClane.

President Asher was kind of a sissy, and would have been nicer to have a president that really stood up to the terrorists instead of just sitting there.

(i.e. When the Sandman comes in to take him out, she should actually ORDER the NSA op to do it.)

4.) Dialogue and Description

The description was good.

I’ll talk more about this later, but the action flowed smoothly.

A few quick nuggets of nice visuals though:

Page 12:

The WHITE HOUSE itself rises majestically from the emerald
South Lawn. Secret Service SNIPERS on the roof, K-9 PATROLS
circling the grounds, armed GUARDS at every entrance.

The most protected building on earth.

Page 31:

A large, well-lit room. Hermetically-sealed, waterproof,
soundproof, direct-hit-from-a-nuclear-bombproof.

Dialogue needed some work, especially in originality.

There were numerous lines that started with “well, hey, so.” This is a big NO for us as writers. We need to make it more interesting for our spec scripts. In fact if we’re starting dialogue like this, we should consider removing it altogether.

Most of it was just…so…cheesy.

Page 3:

TRUMBULL
(to Asher, only halfjoking)
Can’t be any colder than the
reception your foreign policy
initiative’s gettin’ on the Hill,
Mr. President.

Sounded like one of those jokes Obama makes and the press corps laughs out of courtesy.

Page 4:

O’NEIL
(shakes his head)
Always the cowboy –

Page 47:

TRUMBULL
So he knows what he’s doing –

JACOBS
And clearly will stop at nothing to
get it.

Is the Arnold in this movie?

Page 79:

O’NEIL
You shouldn’t… have left… the
boy.

All of these felt like examples pulled from a book called, How to Write Action Dialogue. (I really hope that’s not a real book.)

Not only cheesy, that last one felt like something out of an action parody movie, where the character fake dies a time or two and overdramatically.

Please, please, please, don’t write like this. (And that’s coming from a guy who KNOWS he doesn’t write good dialogue.)

5.) Format

The format was good.

Description was broken up to be manageable.

No scene numbers.

Would be a script to look at if you’re wondering, “How should I format my script?”

6.) What can this script teach us?

Writing action sequences.

I’ve seen this question asked a time or two on our forums, and this script did that REALLY well.

I was “seeing” the action in my mind as I read it.

The brilliant thing about it was that it didn’t tell us what angles to view things from, just what the characters were doing.

Pretty important factoid there.

I’ll include two examples, but there were quite a few fight scenes, both human and vehicle, that should be read if you’re wondering how to write clear, concise action.

Page 25:

ON THE MALL

BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!

Actually, notice how the writers are “directing without directing.”

Page 70:

Banning hoists himself up onto the floor. Silently moves
forward, Glock raised –

Banning and the third commando CRASH into the wall. Banning
kicks out — connects with the commando’s weapon — the gun
goes flying. The two roll across the floor, furiously
GRAPPLING.

But again, if you’re asking yourself about action sequences, especially on how to make them clear, you should read this script.

7.) What should we avoid emulating?

This script was LITTERED with techno babble.

The weapons, vehicles, etc. were all specific names.

This confused me, and instead of saying things like “machine gun” we had to have “automatic mp5.” If, even for a moment, I’m wondering what a M61 VULCAN ROTARY CANNON is, I’m not thinking about the plot, and that’s bad.

Unless it’s ABSOLUTELY crucial to the plot (like naming Cerberus) keep things general so the reader knows what’s important and what’s not.

Rating: Read this if you ever wondered how Die Hard: White House would play out.

Today’s script caught me a bit off guard.

I hadn’t even known it was an idea for a film, let alone a script until I saw it during a preview with the wife. To me, there should have been more of a build up, especially coming from Disney. Perhaps there was, and the wife and I aren’t getting out to enough movies.

DISCLAIMER: As it was mentioned on the forums, this is an early version of the final script. If you want to go see the movie, please do (remember your funding of Hollywood helps us all pitch new ideas), or at the very least check here for reviews of the actual film.

With that little bit out of the way, can this story convince us there’s no place like Oz?

Don’t forget you can download the script here.

1.) Marketability of the Idea

I, for one, was interested.

(To be fair though, I still like Return to Oz.)

It’s a prequel, which I find fascinating, especially as I always wondered how exactly the Wizard of Oz came to be just a man and no one ever figured it out. Wouldn’t someone have to have seen him set up shop?

This movie answers that question, in addition to giving us back story on some of the characters who pop up during Dorothy’s adventure.

I think that it’s being one of the top movies for a few weekends now helps cement the fact that people are interested in the Land of Oz.

2.) Plot Stability

I’m actually glad I chose to review this script right after taking a look at Argo over the weekend.

Where Argo threw all sorts of obstacles at its protagonist, Oz literally goes from one scene to the next, almost in a straight line.

The entire thing is EPISODIC.

When we write, it can’t feel like we’re stringing the protag along by his nose, there has to be motivation for why he’s going from scene to scene.

Don’t get me wrong, this script had what I’m sure were eye tantalizing visuals, but if the story isn’t linked to it, it’s all for naught. (I was actually reminded of an amateur script from WAYYY back. The Playground, which had a lot of cool scenes too, but I think Brad did a better job with his story, even if it was a bit episodic.)

Another problem was that Oz had a very easy time of things. When being chased by the savage army, Glinda lays down a mist, allowing him to escape before he’s really ever in danger.

Next he comes to a GIANT BARRIER that he can’t get through, but his companion, the talking flying monkey Kala, just uses a special orb which lets them right through.

Right after that, Oz is given the advice to “be careful in Ripple Land” and basically walks right through it.

No trouble. No struggles. Hell, not even a scraped knee.

This continues throughout the entire story, and just when the insurmountable odds seem greatly stacked against Oz and his army, every part of their plan is pulled off flawlessly. (For instance Glinda rages this huge snowstorm to mask their movements, which is allegedly draining her witch power. She passes out, but after a quick nap is back to 100%.)

We can’t allow things to happen like this. We need to drag our characters over the coals a few times, but make sure it ties into the story. (Don’t just drag them through some hot coals for the sake of putting their feet to the fire.)

Two cool things

I did enjoy the fact that the “good” witches Oz meets at the beginning are really the bad ones. Even if it was a bit of a predictable twist.

The ending was also cool where Oz decides to stay in, well Oz, but remain behind the scenes. Similar to Batman deciding to be the bad guy at the end of Dark Knight Rises, as that’s what the city needs. (Although cool, it didn’t feel believable.)

3.) Quality of Characters

Minor characters were bad.

Odd names, and quick descriptions left me reading and not caring what type of Oz folk any of them were.

The relationship between Evanora and Theodora was muddled too, which felt off. At one point, Evanora tried to get Oz to kill her sister, thinking Theodora sent Oz to kill her, but then she tells Theodora in an attempt to turn Theodora against Oz.

Confusing right? It also felt disingenuous, like something added to define the two characters, but it actually just made them more obscure.

There was also more needing to be done with Theodora.

I’m not sure how the final movie handles it, but I was hoping for more of an inner struggle there. To make it more convincing, she and Oz should have an additional intimate moment or two that establishes how they really feel about each other.

This would also enhance the plot, as seeing Oz working with Glinda would give Theodora more of a push to go bad, but also should drive Oz to try and save her at the end, instead of, “Oh well, I guess she’s too far gone like Glinda says.”

Glinda was alright, as was Kala.

Lastly, I did like Oz overall.

His quick wit and grand standing fit the bill for how the Oz of Dorothy’s story comes across.

What I didn’t like was his character arc.

The entire time he’s selfish, selfish, selfish, but right at the end, oh 180 degree turn, I’ll stay and play the good guy. There wasn’t enough build up and showing that he could make the right decisions, and be selfless about it.

4.) Dialogue and Description

Description first.

There were HUGE blocks of text. Walls of it.

This should have been broken up, as it was hard to focus, but also there were ideas that should have been separated out anyway.

Page 2:

EXT. KANSAS PRAIRIE – EARLY EVENING
A gray land under a gray sky — everything flat, drab,
dreary. A ramshackle farmhouse — a creaky weather vane — a
dirt road stretches to nowhere — but then we see, up ahead,
looming over the horizon: A LARGE LIGHTER-THAN-AIR BALLOON –below which we find:

EXT./INT. OZ’S EXHIBITION TENT
Where the audience gazes listlessly at the two men up on
stage. The fast-talking huckster in the velveteen frock-coat
is none other than OSCAR ZOROASTER PHADRIG ISAAC NORMAN
HENKLE EMMANUEL AMBROISE DIGGS — a.k.a. ‘OZ’ for short –
and he’s standing with his back to the second guy, who looks
to be some local businessman.

Blur it together on the page, and chances are it’ll blur together in a reader’s head.

More, page 4:

Then suddenly he SNEEZES — such a tremendous ah-choo that he lets go of the cage and doubles over in two — and the cage somehow, magically, stays right where it is — just hovering in mid-air — a pretty neat trick, actually — then Oz straightens up and, with a flourish, he snaps the cloth off the cage to reveal: a SNOWY WHITE DOVE. Oz opens the cage door, the dove flies out, Oz takes another bow — and this time, one well-dressed, very ATTRACTIVE WOMAN actually does applaud. Her HUSBAND, a stern-looking character with a waxed mustache and a bowler hat, silences her with a scowl.

There was some really cool visuals going on here, but again, breaking it up helps us SEE IT as we read.

One last example from page 8:

THE BIG TOP — where he scuttles under the bleachers, sprints across Center Ring — only to find the exit blocked by Mr. Hamilton and his posse. Oz turns on a dime, swiftly scales the AERIALISTS’ LADDER — and Hamilton’s right up after him, hot on Oz’s heels, then OZ GRABS THE TRAPEZE — AND SWINGS OUT… centrifugal force soon swings him back — Hamilton nearly grabs him — then when Oz pendulums back the other way again HE LETS GO OF THE TRAPEZE — free-falls down into the TRAMPOLINE NET, then CATAPULTS right off it and SOMERSAULTS OVER THE HEADS OF HAMILTON’S MEN and zooms out the exit –

More cool things lost in a wall of words.

The description did have a few cool nuggets.

Page 10:

– caressing the machine — sweet-talking to it — he fiddles with it — tries to fix it — finally starts hammering on it with his fist.

It’s easy to see a character go through that quick range of emotions.

Page 28:

A spectacular soaring skyline — Sleeping Beauty’s Castle on steroids –

Anytime something is on steroids in the description, readers will take notice, lol.

Dialogue next.

Overall it wasn’t bad, but wasn’t anything fancy.

Oz had a lot of assonance going on, which again lent to the character initially being set up by Dorothy’s story.

Page 10:

OZ
Damned technology! Fine, then –
go ahead! — betray me you
Jezebellian jumble of junk! I’ve
been in more perilous predicaments
than this!

He’s also quick witted, as I mentioned before, with lines like this from page 7:

OZ
I can explain.
(off Hamilton’s glare)
You’re right, I can’t, which means,
sir, you’re in luck!
(Hamilton stops, confused)
‘Cause right now, today, absolutely
free of charge, you get to watch
me… disappear.

He gets into a lot of trouble early on, and it gives his character a chance to shine via dialogue and actions, it’s just sad more situations aren’t presented later in the script.

As for the bland dialogue. There’s a lot of back and for that’s just kind of….blah.

Page 16:

OZ
Anything I ever wanted… and she
can do that, your sister?

THEODORA
No it doesn’t, does it?

Most is with the witches, and seems like they’re just repeating the same info over and over.

5.) Format

Other than the blocks of description and a few “we see’s” nothing was off with the format.

What can this script teach us?

The coolest thing I think this script did was tie in things from the original story. Little references were made here and there that made me smile, but also think, “Ah-ha! That’s how that happened.”

Things like Oz meeting the winkies initially (the guard who answers the door of the Emerald City for Dorothy), a cowardly lion being created from a rabbit, or Oz riding a horse of a different color into battle.

Add that to the origin story of the Wicked Witch of the West and the Wizard of Oz, and it makes for some pretty cool elements.

The fine line we have to walk as writers though is not to make the references too cheesy.

For instance at one point Oz says, “I hope a house falls on her head.” That makes sense because it does actually happen later, BUT at the time it’s a completely random thing to say. Same with why Theodora chooses green skin color, and the china doll walking the fence and falling. (Dorothy does the same thing, which is the result of her going to Oz.)

What, if anything, should we avoid emulating?

What we need to avoid I’ve already talked about.

Episodic story structure.

Characters can’t go from one point to another in a straight line. Even if the sights they’re (and we’re) seeing are cool, the story needs to take shape and play out.

Take away the story and all you have is a lot of fancy looking visuals, and no one needs another Episode One.

Rating: Read it if you’re a fan of the Land of Oz

PS – One final gripe.

I didn’t like how his name was Oz, and that’s also the name of the land he’s in. If anything, one should have been named after the other, and since he’s the “Wizard of” he should have donned the name at the end. Was too unbelievable a coincidence.

When I first heard about this film, I was interested. The story of the Iran Hostage Crisis hits a personal note with me in that my birthday shares that same tragic date.

It was a stressful situation, and one that rocked Carter’s presidency. (So much so that if it DIDN’T happen we may not have ended up with a President Reagan.) Luckily it was all resolved in the end.

The script attempts to take a true story and make it into a Hollywood blockbuster, but can the real movie about a fake movie about a real mission be something we all want to see?

Don’t forget you can download the script here.

1.) Marketability of the Idea

It’s based on a true story. That right there will capture a decent portion of the public allowing the author to at least pitch the idea.

Being that Iran’s currently in the news a lot, and a tension seems to be mounting, this can’t hurt the idea’s chances either.

Ultimately, you’re taking a spy recovery mission and setting it into a piece of American History.

People will be interested.

2.) Plot Stability

The plot of the movie is VERY fast paced.

We’re dumped right in the middle of a protest that turns into the taking of the US embassy in Iran.

From there we have six folks escaping and hiding with the Canadians (Tim Hortons, eh?), and ultimately led back to Washington to hear what folks are planning to do about it.

Ideas are thrown out, and it’s up to the main character, Tony Mendez, to come up with a plan.

His idea, to pose as a sci-fi film crew from Canada wanting to shoot on location in Tehran.

A bit far fetched, perhaps, but it’s so silly it just might work…

(An actual line from the script. At least the last part is.)

As the rest of the plot flushes out, the story does a good job of bouncing us around.

Tony doesn’t just go over to Iran, give the folks their fake backgrounds, and walk right onto the plane past security.

No, no.

A whole bunch of other things are going on in the background.

The group has to head out, for the first time since hiding, to a crowded bazaar where they will pretend to be scouting a location. All in the midst of a very sensitive, and anti-US population. Will a maple leaf flag be enough to disguise them?

The CIA pulls the plug on the entire operation a day before it they board the plane.

The shredded documents are being reassembled and it’s discovered six people are missing.

AND those six people just happen to match the photographs of the people who were at the bazaar the day before. Uh-oh!

As I stated above, we as the readers weren’t led in a straight line from the beginning to the end. Did we know they would ultimately get out? Deep down, yes, but things were kept exciting as we went through.

I’ll talk about this below, but we need to make sure we’re creating doubt as we go, while also spicing things up. If not, the reader gets bored, and when a reader gets bored chances are your script gets tossed.

We can’t let that happen.

3.) Quality of Characters

The characters were rather bland.

A lot of the CIA and government types all blended together.

As did the group of six holed up with the Canuckleheads.

Was this due to using real people and names? I don’t know, but what I can tell you is that I only remembered maybe two characters from each group. Just enough to get me through the story, but bad enough to take me out of it as I wondered, “Okay, who’s this person again?”

The three characters worth noting were Mendez, Siegel, and Chambers.

All had a very cynical way of looking at the world that felt refreshing and interesting enough that I looked forward to seeing their names in the dialogue section.

Examples to follow.

4.) Dialogue and Description

Dialogue

Most of the dialogue was okay, sans for some really good bits from the three characters mentioned above.

Page 20:

MENDEZ
You can send in training wheels
and wait at the border with
Gatorade.

MENDEZ
It’s 300 miles to the Turkish
crossings. They’d need a support
crew behind them with a tire pump.

It’s winter time, and the folks and the State Department wanting to call the shots don’t seem to be thinking rationally or aren’t sensing the urgency of the situation.

Page 20-23:

Not going to copy and paste it, but I thought there was a really cool scene here. Instead of going over what each character thinks, they’re all spitballing ideas. Most of them aren’t completing a thought before being interrupted. This seems more realistic of how a time sensitive brain storming session would go.

Page 36:

CHAMBERS
How you getting in the embassy?

CHAMBERS
You’ll fit right in.

I think this was in one of the previews, but as I mentioned, it shows a unique voice in relation to a very tense and serious situation. (Also helps that they’re poking fun a bit of Hollow-wood.)

Page 55:

MENDEZ
How’d you always get around the
pricks upstairs?

SIEGEL
There’s always another prick one
floor higher up.

What is the most interesting way a character can say this?

Instead of, “What should I do?” With a reply of, “Ask his boss!”

The dialogue used is unique, both answering the questions and providing humor.

Description

It was a bit hard to follow at times. There was a lot going on, especially at the beginning.

Once we settle into the story though, things start to clear up, and we’re treated to quite a few gems of imagery.

Page 4:

…the GATE CHAIN IS CUT and protestors FLOOD through the
embassy gates, a human dam breaking –

Page 17:

They walk through an open floor of cubicles lined with
offices, we get a look at the 1979 CIA headquarters:
nothing sleek or sexy about the interior. An open area
of desks where Woodward and Bernstein might be spilling
coffee on their thick ‘70s ties. Papers and files
everywhere. Trash emptying happens only once a week.
Cigarette and cigar butts in ashtrays. Everything is
perpetually a mess. And typewriters. The constant
percussive sound of telexes and typing is the metronome
that beats out the day here.