When thinking about what to write I usually have one story concept that keeps recurring. I can't seem to get away from it. I can't get to the next idea either. I'm creatively stuck.
Whether you choose to believe in a Jungian "collective unconscious" from which we draw ideas, or an all-knowing, all-powerful God who gives us ideas, or The Muses, or Fate, or dumb luck, ideas come to us. They challenge us; they haunt us.
What are our choices when this happens?
We can ignore them, get stuck on them, or write them and turn them into full-blown stories.
I've seen people stuck YEARS on one story idea and they never just go ahead and write it. Then, they wonder why they can't move to the next idea or the next project. They're in a creative funk.
Write the story that you feel you need to write. Even if that screenplay, teleplay, novel, or whatever form it takes doesn't sell or even turn out all that well you honored the muses. You did your best. You developed and matured as a writer. You moved on from that one idea and now you have ten others as a reward.
So, go write it and write it fast!
Thursday, May 31, 2018
What's Your Story's "Secret Sauce"?
There's a restaurant in Baton Rouge that started twenty years ago near L.S.U. called Raising Cane's. They sell chicken fingers. Nothing that special about chicken fingers in general, or theirs. They have a sauce though (mixture of several things and spices) that students loved. Now, Cane's is in many states and is a multi-million dollar in annual revenues business.
What did they have?
The secret sauce.
What's the "secret sauce" for your story?
What in your script is taking it to a new place or new level?
For example, there are thousands of "buddy cop" scripts out there. After the original Shane Black LETHAL WEAPON spec sale, the market back then was flooded with "two cops, an odd coupling, are forced to work together and..." scripts. They still circulate in Hollywood.
What about your buddy cop script separates it from the 1,000s of other buddy cop scripts they already have, made, or rejected?
Max Landis asked himself that question and came up with BRIGHT. I assume he was playing D&D with some friends and though, "What if... a cop was forced to team up with an orc in a world like our own but where fantasy creatures exist?
Buddy cop script... with a twist. With that secret sauce that took it to the next level and a $100 million production with Will Smith.
When considering your concept, make sure you've got something that separates it from the herd. There are going to be a dozen similar scripts out there to whatever you're writing. A million monkeys on typewriters. Be the smart monkey.
What did they have?
The secret sauce.
What's the "secret sauce" for your story?
What in your script is taking it to a new place or new level?
For example, there are thousands of "buddy cop" scripts out there. After the original Shane Black LETHAL WEAPON spec sale, the market back then was flooded with "two cops, an odd coupling, are forced to work together and..." scripts. They still circulate in Hollywood.
What about your buddy cop script separates it from the 1,000s of other buddy cop scripts they already have, made, or rejected?
Max Landis asked himself that question and came up with BRIGHT. I assume he was playing D&D with some friends and though, "What if... a cop was forced to team up with an orc in a world like our own but where fantasy creatures exist?
Buddy cop script... with a twist. With that secret sauce that took it to the next level and a $100 million production with Will Smith.
When considering your concept, make sure you've got something that separates it from the herd. There are going to be a dozen similar scripts out there to whatever you're writing. A million monkeys on typewriters. Be the smart monkey.
Sunday, May 6, 2018
AVENGERS INFINITY WAR: THE DEATH OF DEATH (SPOILERS APLENTY!)
SPOILER ALERT: SPOILERS IN THIS ARTICLE - SEE THE MOVIES FIRST!
When I was a kid I saw SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. The film was made in 1979 and was the first big budget superhero movie. No movie star wanted to put on a superhero costume as they believed it would make them look silly. How times change. The then relatively unknown Christopher Reeve was cast as Clark Kent/Superman and Margot Kidder played Lois Lane.
The film was a top-shelf production. Marlon Brando was paid a fortune to play Superman's father, Jor-El. The script was written by Mario Puzo (Oscar-winning writer of The Godfather and Godfather Part 2) and Newman & Benton.
At the end of the film, Superman is presented with a dilemma. He must choose between stopping two missiles heading in opposite directions. He's unable to stop both and, as a result, Lois Lane dies from the effects of an Earthquake.
Lois Lane dead? Quite an emotional moment.
But wait! Superman flies super fast around Earth and the planet goes backward and... time goes backward. Superman is then able to save Lois Lane and the film ends.
"What a cheat! Total ripoff ending," I thought as a kid. I'd felt manipulated by the storytellers that they gave Superman a do-over. Did the rest of the universe reverse time or just Earth? How did that cause severe damage to the planet? Wouldn't the other missile he stopped blow up because now that version of events wouldn't have taken place?
None of it made sense. As an audience member, I'd been manipulated and was ticked off.
In the 1930s and 1940s there were superhero serials (cheaply made films shown in theaters before the feature films) with Captain Marvel and Batman. I had some VHS copies of these and occasionally they'd do a complete cheat. They'd show the hero going off the cliff. In the following episode, the hero would jump out of the car. "What a cheat!"
We enjoy tension at the movies. Tension is the feeling generated from hope and fear. We hope that our hero will succeed, defeat the antagonist, and stay alive. We fear that she will not.
There must be REAL STAKES for the story to work. A big problem for Superman was always he was so strong - basically a god on Earth - that he wasn't that interesting of a character. No fear of defeat = no tension. Kryptonite originated on the radio show version of Superman and was a brilliant way to make Superman capable of facing defeat.
When we got the 'reverse time = win' finish it meant nobody ever really dies in Superman. There's no way to defeat him if he gets to try again.
Flashforward to ELEKTRA in 2005. ELEKTRA had died in the film DAREDEVIL. The unfairly maligned 2003 DAREDEVIL had told the story of the romance between the film's hero and Elektra and she'd been killed at the end. The 2005 film opens with Elektra being brought back to life.
"Huh?!" If she can die and not die, why do I care to watch the rest of the film? She could die again and... so what? Could be brought back to life. No stakes = no tension.
Now we have AVENGERS INFINITY WAR.
Yes, the film will make over a billion dollars. Likely the follow up will as well. But it's bad storytelling.
At the end of the film, a number of Marvel characters "die" -- are turned to dust by Thanatos, the antagonist. There's a line setting up the sequel where Dr. Strange says, "Now we enter the endgame." So the next film will involve a reversing of time and bring these characters back to life -- a "do over" if you will.
There was genuine emotion in the audience when I saw the film. Shocked gasps and crying as audience members believed this really was the last ride for their beloved heroes. However, just like Lois Lane and Elektra death won't mean a real death and they'll be back for further adventures. We'll just feel a little cheated as the audience.
Let me know your thoughts on these films.
When I was a kid I saw SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE. The film was made in 1979 and was the first big budget superhero movie. No movie star wanted to put on a superhero costume as they believed it would make them look silly. How times change. The then relatively unknown Christopher Reeve was cast as Clark Kent/Superman and Margot Kidder played Lois Lane.
The film was a top-shelf production. Marlon Brando was paid a fortune to play Superman's father, Jor-El. The script was written by Mario Puzo (Oscar-winning writer of The Godfather and Godfather Part 2) and Newman & Benton.
At the end of the film, Superman is presented with a dilemma. He must choose between stopping two missiles heading in opposite directions. He's unable to stop both and, as a result, Lois Lane dies from the effects of an Earthquake.
Lois Lane dead? Quite an emotional moment.
But wait! Superman flies super fast around Earth and the planet goes backward and... time goes backward. Superman is then able to save Lois Lane and the film ends.
"What a cheat! Total ripoff ending," I thought as a kid. I'd felt manipulated by the storytellers that they gave Superman a do-over. Did the rest of the universe reverse time or just Earth? How did that cause severe damage to the planet? Wouldn't the other missile he stopped blow up because now that version of events wouldn't have taken place?
None of it made sense. As an audience member, I'd been manipulated and was ticked off.
In the 1930s and 1940s there were superhero serials (cheaply made films shown in theaters before the feature films) with Captain Marvel and Batman. I had some VHS copies of these and occasionally they'd do a complete cheat. They'd show the hero going off the cliff. In the following episode, the hero would jump out of the car. "What a cheat!"
We enjoy tension at the movies. Tension is the feeling generated from hope and fear. We hope that our hero will succeed, defeat the antagonist, and stay alive. We fear that she will not.
There must be REAL STAKES for the story to work. A big problem for Superman was always he was so strong - basically a god on Earth - that he wasn't that interesting of a character. No fear of defeat = no tension. Kryptonite originated on the radio show version of Superman and was a brilliant way to make Superman capable of facing defeat.
When we got the 'reverse time = win' finish it meant nobody ever really dies in Superman. There's no way to defeat him if he gets to try again.
Flashforward to ELEKTRA in 2005. ELEKTRA had died in the film DAREDEVIL. The unfairly maligned 2003 DAREDEVIL had told the story of the romance between the film's hero and Elektra and she'd been killed at the end. The 2005 film opens with Elektra being brought back to life.
"Huh?!" If she can die and not die, why do I care to watch the rest of the film? She could die again and... so what? Could be brought back to life. No stakes = no tension.
Now we have AVENGERS INFINITY WAR.
Yes, the film will make over a billion dollars. Likely the follow up will as well. But it's bad storytelling.
At the end of the film, a number of Marvel characters "die" -- are turned to dust by Thanatos, the antagonist. There's a line setting up the sequel where Dr. Strange says, "Now we enter the endgame." So the next film will involve a reversing of time and bring these characters back to life -- a "do over" if you will.
There was genuine emotion in the audience when I saw the film. Shocked gasps and crying as audience members believed this really was the last ride for their beloved heroes. However, just like Lois Lane and Elektra death won't mean a real death and they'll be back for further adventures. We'll just feel a little cheated as the audience.
Let me know your thoughts on these films.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
STORY VS. BACKSTORY: ANALYSIS OF THE SPACE BETWEEN US
When to begin your story? What is the story you want to tell vs. what's backstory? Backstory is what happens before our screenplay begins. I saw the film THE SPACE BETWEEN US last night and it illustrates the pitfall many writers fall into.
THE SPACE BETWEEN US is about a 16-year-old boy, Gardner Elliot. He's our protagonist. His backstory is his mother didn't tell NASA she was pregnant when she led a mission to colonize Mars. Gardner was born on Mars and has never been to Earth. NASA kept it a secret. His mother died in childbirth and he's never met his father.
What's Gardner's goal? The protagonist's goal is to get to Earth, meet up with a love interest he's met on the internet (a girl named Tulsa) and find his father. What's the obstacle? He might die as his organs aren't used to Earth's atmosphere and NASA wants to hold him for observation. So he escapes, finds Tulsa, and seeks out his father.
When does the film begin?
The movie opens with ... 20 minutes of backstory. Gary Oldman plans a scientist behind the mission. We meed Gardner's mother and they travel to Mars. We find out in flight that she's lied to NASA. Gardner is born. The mother dies. It takes twenty minutes into the film before the story starts.
All of this information, though extremely relevant to the story, is backstory. Our protagonist, Gardner, doesn't even show up until these twenty minutes have gone by.
How should it have been handled?
Handling exposition and setting up a story properly is one of the great challenges facing a writer. We could have opened with Gardner, gotten to know him, and through dialogue, images (a photograph), old video, etc. found out who he is and how he got there.
There are some scientific issues with the film. NASA spent a trillion dollars on a mission to Mars, but not the $20 to do a pregnancy test? Gardner does a real-time chat session with Tulsa. The speed of light distance to Mars from Earth is three minutes. So that was impossible. But these are minor issues compared to the glaring error of opening with twenty minutes of backstory.
Ask yourself a few questions:
1. Why start my story on this day?
2. Who is my real protagonist? If they aren't in the film the first few minutes, you've got a problem.
3. If I cut out this scene or this sequence of scenes, do I still tell my story? (Story = protagonist seeking a goal against obstacles faces a crisis and in the resolution either succeeds or fails.)
If you can cut it out and work it in while your story is actually taking place, do so.
THE SPACE BETWEEN US is about a 16-year-old boy, Gardner Elliot. He's our protagonist. His backstory is his mother didn't tell NASA she was pregnant when she led a mission to colonize Mars. Gardner was born on Mars and has never been to Earth. NASA kept it a secret. His mother died in childbirth and he's never met his father.
What's Gardner's goal? The protagonist's goal is to get to Earth, meet up with a love interest he's met on the internet (a girl named Tulsa) and find his father. What's the obstacle? He might die as his organs aren't used to Earth's atmosphere and NASA wants to hold him for observation. So he escapes, finds Tulsa, and seeks out his father.
When does the film begin?
The movie opens with ... 20 minutes of backstory. Gary Oldman plans a scientist behind the mission. We meed Gardner's mother and they travel to Mars. We find out in flight that she's lied to NASA. Gardner is born. The mother dies. It takes twenty minutes into the film before the story starts.
All of this information, though extremely relevant to the story, is backstory. Our protagonist, Gardner, doesn't even show up until these twenty minutes have gone by.
How should it have been handled?
Handling exposition and setting up a story properly is one of the great challenges facing a writer. We could have opened with Gardner, gotten to know him, and through dialogue, images (a photograph), old video, etc. found out who he is and how he got there.
There are some scientific issues with the film. NASA spent a trillion dollars on a mission to Mars, but not the $20 to do a pregnancy test? Gardner does a real-time chat session with Tulsa. The speed of light distance to Mars from Earth is three minutes. So that was impossible. But these are minor issues compared to the glaring error of opening with twenty minutes of backstory.
Ask yourself a few questions:
1. Why start my story on this day?
2. Who is my real protagonist? If they aren't in the film the first few minutes, you've got a problem.
3. If I cut out this scene or this sequence of scenes, do I still tell my story? (Story = protagonist seeking a goal against obstacles faces a crisis and in the resolution either succeeds or fails.)
If you can cut it out and work it in while your story is actually taking place, do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)