Happy 10th anniversary, Go into the Story!

Scott Myers is the Cal Ripken of screenwriting.

Today marks the 10th anniversary of Scott's blog, Go Into The Story, a site for which no introduction will be adequate. Almost as soon as it came into existence, it was THE hub for everything screenwriting related. Scott not only has maintained a daily posting schedule since the beginning, he's maintained a routine of 4-6 posts a day for 10 years. These include features like The Business of Screenwriting, Reader Questions, Daily Dialogue, Script Breakdowns, Script Downloads, Interviews with working professionals, links and featured looks at the most important news in writing and the industry.... and much, much more.

It doesn't shock me that when Franklin Leonard was looking for an official blogger for The Black List, he went straight to Scott. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anyone who's given more to the aspiring screenwriter community so selflessly.

It's not easy maintaining a blog with a focus on writing. I've been blogging just over nine years and a few years ago I started feeling like I'd run out of things to say. Even just aggregating other articles and keeping the conversation going on some of these topics became too much to do while working full time and trying to advance my writing career.

Then I look at Scott, who's kept Go Into The Story running even after taking a job as Assistant Professor at DePaul University's School of Cinematic Arts, even as he takes time to be a mentor for the Black List Labs, and maintains private script workshops and Screenwriting Master Class. Heck, last year the man released 12 e-books about screenwriting. For free!

If it wasn't for Scott Myers, there's an excellent chance that far fewer of you would have ever been aware of me. I discovered Scott's blog almost exactly nine years ago, some four or five months after I started blogging. I think I was getting MAYBE 30-50 hits per day to the entire site back then.

I was trying to think of ways to extend my reach when I ran across GITS. I instantly recognized it as a treasure trove of screenwriting information. I was instantly addicted to this look behind the curtain from one of the writers of K9. He had a lot of great stories from his time in the industry and wasn't short on practical knowledge either. And back then, he was getting a lot of engagement in the comments. After reading for a few days, I noticed that Scott linked to other sites and would spotlight other screenwriting resources. I commented one whatever post was his featured post that day, keeping my fingers crossed that it would have the desired result.

It did. I soon got a email from Scott. As I hoped, my moniker caught his interest enough that he followed it back to my blog and saw the few months of posts. I guess what he saw made enough of an impression that he was interested in finding out more about me. I got bold and asked if he could do a shout-out to my site in a future post and he offered to go one better and feature a brief interview with me. I barely knew the guy, but he treated me like a friend. It was my first experience with making friends as "Bitter."

When the interview went live, my traffic immediately jumped to about 500 and then quickly 800 visits a day. Over the years, it would steadily grow higher, but Scott's spotlight was responsible for the biggest percentage jump in my visibility and engagement. He put me on the map and I will be eternally grateful for that.

It would be over four years until I actually got to meet Scott face-to-face. By then we'd traded dozens of emails, often conversing about some of the big changes in screenwriting that were affecting aspirings. It was good to have a sounding board to help make sense of whatever the heck was going on with the then-new Amazon Studios and more than once, our conversations were centered on "What can we do to help good writers get better?"

Scott's students are a fortunate group, indeed. But everyone who's read GITS for the last ten years can also count themselves as beneficiaries of Scott's generosity. A kinder gentleman you could not meet, and a more enthusiastic screenwriting teacher you could not hope to find.

I bristle at the term "screenwriting guru," especially when it's applied to me. (When the Grim Reaper comes for me, I BEG you to make sure that term appears nowhere near my obituaries.) I recognize it's usually applied with good intent, but even so, it feels wrong to use that phrase in reference to Scott. I prefer to think of him as our Yoda.

Congrats on ten years in the blogosphere, Scott! Here's to another decade of encouraging young screenwriters!

Free screenwriting e-books from Go Into The Story!

I realized this week that while I've tweeted about this, I have yet to put up a post dedicated to Go Into The Story's year-long plan to release a new free e-book about screenwriting each month.

Scott Myers, the architect of Go Into The Story, should need no introduction in the screenwriting blogosphere. He's a professional screenwriter, with his credits including K-9 and TROJAN WAR. He's been blogging about screenwriting for the better part of a decade while teaching the craft at UNC and currently, at DePaul University in Chicago.

You'll find few better resources for screenwriting online than Scott and his blog. The books are sort of a "greatest hits" compilation series from the best of his blog. They're all worth a read and they're FREE. Yes, the same sorts of material you'll pay $15 for at Barnes & Noble is available at no charge here - and it's the work of someone who's been both a Hollywood writer and a teacher. It's the best of both worlds!

In a post several months ago, Scott said:

As always, I don’t claim to be the world’s greatest expert. Everything in these eBooks and on this blog is what I guess one could best call ‘informed opinions’. I’m not an A-list Hollywood writer, but I have written 30 projects for every major movie studio and TV broadcast network, have had 4 movies produced, I have created and produced TV series, and I have taught about the craft and business of screenwriting for 15 years, so I have my own unique perspective on things. If you connect with anything I write, great. If not, feel free to ignore. Each writer needs to figure out their own approach to the craft and as I always say: Every writer is different. Every story is different. There is no one way to write.

My vision in hosting the blog and with this eBook series is simply to contribute to the conversation and hopefully provide writers with some insights and inspiration along the way.

Vol 1: 30 Things About Screenwriting

Vol 2: So-Called Screenwriting Rules

Vol 3: Writing a Screenplay

Vol 4: Rewriting a Screenplay

Vol 5: A Screenwriter's Guide to Aristotle's Poetics

Vol 6: A Screenwriter's Guide to Reading a Screenplay.

Enjoy the books! There are six more volumes to go!

Check out Go Into The Story's interview with John Gary

Scott Myers is running an interview this week with my friend John Gary over on Go Into The Story. John is one of the many fine people I've met through Twitter over the years, and we've bonded through our similar outlook on the business at times, as well as our mutual histories as agency readers.

John's having a big week, as Deadline just announced that his screenplay SARAH has been acquired by Lionsgate's Summit. Buried in Deadline's announcement is the additional news that John is rewriting a film called OFF-WORLD for Paramount, with Josh Duhamel set to star.

(Having read SARAH, I'm rather perplexed by Deadline's comparison of it to LUCY. I don't see the two as being similar at all, beyond the fact both star young women and have action sequences.)

A lot of what John says in the interview really resonates with me. Speaking about the job of script reading, John observes:

"It is very easy to get stuck with velvet handcuffs when you’re pulling in good money for work that is pretty easy, not all that time consuming, you’ve been doing it for awhile and you’re getting the good scripts and you have some respect at work, and you’re complacent and it’s easier to read another script than it is to write something of your own. But in the end, you have to write."

SO. TRUE. I have lived this.

Later, John discusses how he reversed a cold streak in his career:

"I looked around and saw other people, other friends, and they were finding some success, so I knew there was a way in. I took a step back, and I said to myself, “What am I missing here?” and the thing I was missing was I was writing what I thought I should write, instead of what I wanted to write. I’d been listening to too many other people, and I’d stopped listening to myself.

"I fired my manager. I joined a small writer’s group. I needed to get back to what works for me creatively. I needed to figure out again what I liked to do. I’d forgotten by then. I’d gotten too wrapped up in chasing the machine, pining for success. But writing what you love is only half of the equation. Writing what Hollywood loves is the other half.

"I have this theory, and it’s a theory about who you are as a writer and what Hollywood does. It’s a Venn Diagram. There’s one circle – what Hollywood does. There’s another circle – what kind of writer you are. And this includes what you like to write and what you’re good at and what kind of writing really lights you on fire. The intersection of those two circles: that’s what you should write."

 Four parts have been posted so far, with more to follow.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

And don't forget to check out an archive post of mine: John Gary and the Hope Machine.

This blog turns six! - There's still much more work to do

Today this blog is six years old. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised it's lasted this long and that so many of you fine people still drop by to read every new post. It's funny to think that when I started it, I wondered if I'd have enough material to keep me going six months.

Some of you have possibly noticed that the blog output has slowed a bit. That's largely due to the fact that I've exhausted a lot of the common topics and questions I could cover related to screenwriting. I've been able to compensate for that over the last few months as it's Oscar Movie season and I've had a full buffet of great movies to discuss.

The other big sea change is that it's become more and more common for people to use Twitter as an output for their musings and advice. I still like the idea of a permanent archive on the blog, partly because it allows new readers to discover those nuggets long after the fact. Even so, I know I've had plenty of times where I've tossed off a good rant on twitter and found that got it enough out of my system that I didn't feel the need to come back here and flesh it out. I'm trying to be better about that.

Ah, Twitter. I really can't believe that I still have yet to plateau in terms of followers. As I write this I have over 27,700 followers and the last time I checked, only a few percent of those were deemed "fake." It's flattering to see evidence that people are still discovering me and interested in what I have to say.

I bring this up because even more than through this blog, I've made a lot of great friends and contacts through Twitter over the last six years. It's absolutely been one of the best things I could have done for my career. I've made some good friends, including fellow aspiring writers, actors, and working writers - including a showrunner or two. I definitely recommend trying to build your own social network. It takes time but if you use Twitter right, you might find a few doors opening up for you.

As it's Awards Season, it feels appropriate to conclude this look back with a few thank yous.  There's not enough space here to acknowledge everyone whom I've met and become friends with due to this blog, but there are a few in particular I want to call out.

I did my best to put this list in random order, but I have to start with Scott Myers. About five months into the life of this blog, Scott was the one who really put me on the map when he featured me and gave me a very generous plug on the only must-read screenwriting blog, Go Into The Story. For almost five years, my relationship with Scott was completely through emails and tweets. I met him just over a year ago and it was a genuine delight to find he was everything you'd expect. Scott is the screenwriting professor I wish I'd had in college, running the sort of blog I could only dream of reading when I was taking my first steps into screenwriting. As I implore you often, please visit Go Into The Story regularly.

Hollywood has a reputation for having a lot of assholes. Some of that is earned, but my first-hand experience has been that there are a significant number of sincerely giving people. Over the years, a very high percentage of the working writers I have met have been some of the kindest, most helpful people out there. There's this myth that working writers are out to screw over aspirings. I've never seen any evidence of this, and the people I'm about to name-check are the furthest from that:

Eric Heisserer was one of the first working writers whom I got to know through Twitter, following his reaction to a tweet about the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET reboot. He later consented to an interview about the film and also authored a guest post about the life of a script in the studio development process. Even today, that post stands as my third-most-popular post of all time. On a one-on-one level, Eric has also been giving enough of his time to read some of my work and offer help where he could. He didn't do it so I'd blog about it, he's just that kind of person. Publicly he's very giving in offering the occasional screenwriting knowledge drops on Twitter, and I encourage you to follow him for his regular insights.

If you just know John Gary from Twitter, you probably have this image of him as the cranky pessimist who's the first one to say why the latest screenwriting development is a half-empty glass. But you'll have to look hard to find a more passionate advocate for writers, and someone more determined to make sure that naive aspirings aren't taken advantage of by charlatans and scams. He also regularly takes on what he calls The Hope Machine - the parent of the pie-in-the-sky fantasies that writers have about how easy it'll be to gain fame and forture from their writing. John doesn't tell you want you want to hear - he says what you NEED to hear. Like me he's seen the business from the inside as both a reader and a writer, and you would ignore the wisdom from that experience at your peril.

Along the same lines, I consider Geoff LaTulippe a must-follow. You can never accuse Geoff of not speaking his mind and while his blunt and aggressive nature sometimes gets him into trouble, he's very open to answering questions from aspiring writers on Twitter, on his podcast Broken Projector and on his personal website. If memory serves, Geoff might have been the first pro writer to reach out to me with an offer to read my script, and I know that's a courtesy he's extended to a few, perhaps many, others.

Justin Marks is a working writer who I first came to know via Twitter. We seem to approach things from a similar point of view and it's rare that there's a significant gulf in our opinions. (Justin once quipped that "we could pilot a Jaeger together.") I finally met him last year and it was a relief to learn that our rapport extended to our face-to-face interaction. Justin's got two big projects in the future: The Jon Favreau-directed Jungle Book movie coming in 2016 and the sequel to Top Gun, still unscheduled as far as I know. He's another one whose tweets can be a good insight into the business, so give him a follow.

F. Scott Frazier was one of the first writers to reach out to me to meet in person, and I'm glad I dropped the mask to do so. Scott tends to do his good deeds without advertising them, but I know he's gone out of his way to be a mentor to some writers. Like many others I know, he definitely believes in paying it forward, and frankly, he's prolific enough that it would be understandable if he didn't want to take the time to do so. I'd be remiss if I didn't plug my interview with him.

When people come to me asking for a coverage referral, I point them at Amanda Pendolino and ONLY Amanda Pendolino. Like me, Amanda's gotten a number of years as a script reader under her belt while trying to build her own career. She gives really sharp notes, and in a manner that always feels constructive. I recently gave her a script that I'm pretty sure wasn't her cup of tea, but she made a passionate, persuasive case for her opinions without making me feel like I'd been eviscerated. That's rare. On top of that, she's a great writer who deserves to be on staff somewhere. I know if I was a showrunner, she'd be one of my early draft picks.

Speaking of showrunners, Jeff Lieber is another favorite twitter-buddy. Currently one of the showrunners on NCIS: New Orleans, Jeff is one of the creators of Lost, as well as the creator of Miami Medical and was a showrunner on Necessary Roughness. He's used those assignments and others as fodder for his Showrunner Rules, which he regularly doles out on Twitter. You can find the whole archive here and his feed is always a valuable read.

The people I've named already are all great writers, but one writer whose work just knocked me on my ass was Brian Scully. I gave a spotlight post to his brilliant script MERCIFUL last year and soon after that, Brian landed management with Verve. I'm currently in the weeds on a very dark script of my own and I can honestly say that MERCIFUL has been like that rabbit they use to get the greyhounds to do laps around the track. I've read plenty of scripts that have inspired me and taught me, but MERCIFUL is one that really pushed me to be better and to not be scared to take chances.

Through my association with Go Into The Story, I also came to know Nate Winslow. Scott Myers calls him "future super producer Nate Winslow" and not without good reason. Nate is a savvy guy who's worked on a number of film projects, most recently at Defender Entertainment. If someone's smart, they'll snap him up to be their Creative Executive because he's got a great eye for projects. There are some people who you can just tell when you meet them that they have what it takes to make their own good fortune. With Nate, I know it's only a matter of time before he puts together a project and becomes one of those guys everyone is trying to get their scripts to. He's another one who keeps me motivated, if only so I don't feel like I'm standing still next to him.

And last, but certainly far from least, I consider myself fortunate to have gotten to know Black List founder Franklin Leonard. I take a very dim view of most services that ask screenwriters to pay for them. I don't typically trust coverage companies because you can't really trust who's reading those scripts, and it's rare to find such a company where the person in charge has a significant amount of credibility to put on the line. When Franklin told me he was expanding the Black List's mission to including hosting and review services for aspiring writers, I was skeptical. After he laid it out for me, I became a believer.  A few half-wits have accused my endorsement of the site of being the back-scratch that was redeemed by payola. I can assure you I have no official affiliation with the site, nor have I ever taken any sort of money, bribery or whatever you want to call it. I endorse the Black List because I believe in it and in what Franklin Leonard is trying to do.

I've been fortunate to meet many successful people. I've worked for a number of industry pros who were very good at their jobs and have been able to produce films for most of their adult lives. I want to tell you what sets Franklin Leonard apart from them. Those men and women are very adept players within the existing system. Franklin Leonard is a guy with the will and the forethought to change the system. The Black List is constantly evolving and expanding, carving out partnerships with management companies, studios and producers. More than that, Franklin is possibly one of the most above-board and intelligent people I've met out here. There's nothing phony about him, and if we had more Franklin Leonards, that wouldn't be a terrible thing for our industry.

Franklin is smart enough he could probably be very successful just playing the game as it is. Instead he's forging his own path. I'm glad that writers - both aspiring and professional - have such a driven advocate. I know he's going to continue to push to make the Black List better. I once said to him that he must be proud of everything The Black List has become and his reply was, "There's still much more work to do."

Those who succeed are often those who are rarely satisfied.

These people I have named all have a few things in common. In one way or another they have all provided support and inspiration, and I've been lucky to get to know them. And there are still plenty more whom I don't have the space to name here. I also would never have met ANY of them, had I not started this blog six years ago and stuck with it even when I was getting only 50 hits a day the first few months. I would be a poorer individual for not knowing them.

If you have good fortune, pay it forward. When you deal with others, know there's little to be gained from being a dick. When you reach a goal, start formulating the next one, pushing yourself even harder than you did before. Most of all, don't let yourself become too satisfied with whatever you accomplish.

Thank you all for six great years. There's still much more work to do.

Go Into The Story Interview, Part II - MICHAEL F-ING BAY is "the Tyler Perry of China"

Part I

My interrogation at the hands of Scott Myers continues over on Go Into The Story. Scott really hits me with the challenging questions related to my book MICHAEL F-ING BAY: The Unheralded Genius in Michael Bay's Films.

Jerry Lewis is maligned in the United States, but beloved in France. Given the ginormous success of Transformer movies in Asia, does that mean Michael Bay is the Jerry Lewis of China?

You know how every year, Tyler Perry makes a movie that opens huge? And then the next Monday, the trades fill up space with the standard article of, “Oh my god! Black people go to the movies too! Studios are now actively going to court this financial goldmine?” Then usually nothing changes. Studio films remain as un-diverse as ever until some six months later when the next Lee Daniels-directed or Oprah-produced film come out and everyone feigns shock over this “undiscovered” audience that no one realized was out there.

The genius of Tyler Perry is that he makes films for an under-served segment of the audience. A great many of these films may be critically dubious, but that doesn’t hurt him because people want to see representations of their experience on-screen. That’s why it confounds me from a business standpoint that we don’t market more to African-Americans and women, two of the most unrepresented demographics in studio filmmaking.

Bay’s a smart guy. He knew that if he set some of his last TRANSFORMERS film in China, it would do huge business there. And it did. So in conclusion, Michael Bay is not the Jerry Lewis of China, he’s the Tyler Perry of China.

Plus, I pitch the Michael Bay version of Boyhood, Scott asks me to give advice to the next generation of Transformers writers and demands I resolve the eternal question of "Michael Bay = Steven Spielberg minus what and plus what?"

All this and more in Part II.

Buy the book here.

Find my announcement of the book here.

Go into the Story interview about MICHAEL F-ING BAY, I pitch "Michael Bay's 'JUNO'"

Scott Myers is one of a kind in the screenwriting blogosphere. The man works tirelessly, putting up a half-dozen new posts a day covering everything from script analysis, spec dealmaking and famous lines of dialogue. If there's something you want to learn about screenwriting, there's a good bet you can find it on his site, Go Into The Story.

Scott's been a good friend to the blog and I always enjoy talking to him, but rarely have I enjoyed it as much as this interview he conducted with me about my book, MICHAEL F-ING BAY: The Unheralded Genius in Michael Bay's Films. Scott asked some of the tough questions I haven't gotten elsewhere, such as

And then there was this gem, for which I probably owe an apology to Diablo Cody:

Michael Bay does Juno. Go!

Michael Bay and Diablo Cody on the same film? I’d love to see the trailer for that if for no reason other than the fact that Diablo Cody has a name that was meant to be pronounced by a Don LaFontaine-like trailer narrator. Try it – it’s impossible not to make it sound kickass!

Okay, so the first thing to understand about how Bay develops is that he’ll often start with the action set-pieces first. There’s always action in a Bay film. Even the lower budgeted Pain & Gain has a couple footchase scenes and some explosions. And what do you know – Diablo’s one step ahead of the game with the high school track team’s running scenes. The slow-motion shots of the young men’s privates undulating with each stride also hits the Bay quota of male homoeroticism. So this part of the film is definitely the same – except there’ll be a lot more of it.

Also, Michael Cera’s part is now played by Jai Courtney.

For the rest of the pitch and part 1 of a wild interview, mosey on over to Go Into The Story.

Buy the book on Amazon here.

Read my announcement of the book here.

There's no one right way to get to the destination

You're sitting in the Warner Bros commissary with four friends, noting that you have to go from there to Sony Studios in Culver City.  This being Los Angeles, such an observation provokes 15 minutes of discussion.

"Take Barham to the 101 North. Get on the 405 South.  Take the 10 East, get off at Robertson and you're practically there," says the first friend.

"Are you nuts?!" exclaims the second. "There's no time of day that's good for the 405. Take the 101 South to the 110. Get to the 10 West, then get off at Robertson."

The third gives a sigh. "You guys are too dependent on freeways. Here's how you get there. Barham to Caheunga. South on Caheunga. Turn left onto the bridge just before the Hollywood Bowl because it's stop and go when it turns into Highland. Go right on Caheunga and take it down to Fountain. Right on Fountain. Fountain to La Brea, left on La Brea. Go all the way south to Venice, right on Venice, take Venice to Culver and be ready for the studio entrance."

"I just use Waze," shrugs the fourth.

Every one of those routes will get you to your destination. Some are more complicated then others, some are faster than others but all of them will navigate you from point A to point B, so in that sense, there is no "wrong" way to go.

This is also true of the writing process. As a guy writing a screenwriting blog, I've occasionally felt bad about contributing to an movement of "gurus" who make money selling aspirings "the one" way that they must go about writing their scripts.  When I offer advice about how to get started structuring and commuting your ideas to paper, I try to note that this is just one way to go about it, not THE way it must be done. I know I'm not always perfect about making that distinction, and I do apologize for it.

Go Into The Story recently did a wonderful writers' roundtable with Hollywood screenwriters Chris Borrelli, F. Scott Frazier, Chris McCoy, Justin Rhodes, Greg Russo, and John Swetnam. I like seeing these different personalities bounce off of each other and discuss their process. Each of these guys is successful in their own right, and so as you note the differences in their process and approach, it becomes even more apparent that there is no RIGHT way to get started. Like the Warner Bros to Sony Studios routes, there are a lot of ways to get to your destination.

It was F. Scott Frazier who had the explanation that most resonated with me at the moment. Wendy Cohen asked "People divide themselves into two camps. You either write character really well or you write plot really well. Do you feel you kind of fall into either group, and then if writing plot’s a challenge for you, how do you approach that?"

Frazier's answer: "When I’m outlining or coming up with an idea the most plot I ever think about is what happens on page 15. What is the inciting incident? After that, I feel like it’s up to the characters to determine that. That might just be me making it up as I go along because I don’t think that I’m good at plot. I get something like The Departed and I just shake my head at it like holy shit, I don’t even know where to begin to write something like that.

"Or The Dark Knight or The Dark Knight Returns where it’s a thousand 30-second scenes and every single one of them move the plot forward in crazy ways. My head doesn’t work like that. I tend to prefer simpler plots, simple stuff. If you saw The Numbers Station is two people in a basement trying to get out. A lot of my scripts are that way. “Autobahn” is very much a guy in a car trying to get to his girlfriend.

"Not a lot in the way of plot outside of what happens on page 15 and the rest of it is just how the characters react to what that big event was and how they interact with each other."

He later expounded, "I usually come up with that inciting incident first, that’s usually where my ideas start from, and then out of that I figure out who is the character that’s going to be screwed up the most by that kind of situation. That’s usually where my character comes from."


I cannot express how good it was to hear someone say this.  I've used an approach similar to this on two of my last three specs and I've always been nervous about saying so because I felt like it was admitting that I was just flying by the seat of my pants on the first draft.  On that first script, I pretty much had developed exactly what Frazier said. I had a character in mind, the general world of the story, the tone and the conflict that would be introduced 15 minutes in. It was the first time I ever started writing without even an inkling of what the ending would be or even some of the major signposts along the way.

This turned out to be a case where that approach worked for me. One idea beget another, and another, and by p. 40, I'd build up so many aspects of this world and put enough concepts into play that it became easier to project forward to what was going to happen later in Act Two, and then later still in Act Three.

Certainly, once I had a complete draft, I went back and tightened up some of the points, adjusting earlier scenes to work as set-up for later revelations.  I ended up swapping the fates of two of the characters, as it felt more right for one particular person to die while another person's arc was better served by having them live. Beyond that, a lot of scenes hewed reasonably close to their earliest incarnation.  For someone who used to do a plot of outlining and obsessing over structure, the fact that this yielded such good results (the script was generally well-received) was encouraging.

But I never admitted to people that the first draft was written on the fly. That felt like something to be ashamed of.

My script after that wasn't quite as loose, but I still dove in without much of a formal outline. Again I had the character, the world, the tone and the overall message of the script I wanted to convey.  The concept required a lot more research so I basically immersed myself in that world and took note of interesting tidbits I wanted to include. In that sense, I had a little bit more of a game plan, but I hadn't pretty seriously worked out what beat was going where.

And again, the people who read it really, really liked it and thought it was the best thing I'd written.  One thing I learned from this is that since I was really coming from a specific tone rather than a specific beat sheet, the tone of the story shone through more in these two scripts. It feels stronger on the page than it had in some of my other works, where the tone occasionally came across neutral. I don't like to put my process under that much of a microscope, but my hunch is that maybe the feeling and emotions are more vivid when I'm not just transcribing and fleshing out something I've lived with a long time.

But then, the script that came after that was one where I wrote a very detailed 12-page outline and the early reaction is that the tone is very strong and powerful.

Perhaps the larger point is, the end result of each of those efforts was a completed script, and one that left my readers with far more positive reactions than negative ones. How you get to that stage doesn't matter so much.  Now, if you're completely stymied by the process of getting started, by all means, adopt whatever's necessary, whether that's the Save the Cat model or my 12-Step Screenwriting plan.

The important thing is the destination, not the journey.

There's more really good stuff from Frazier in that interview, but I've already gassed on enough.  Check out the entire 6-part interview and odds are you'll find yourself nodding along with several of those writers at one point or another.

The final word on "we see."

Scott has been running a great series on Go Into The Story where he attempts to put the lie to the notion of "Screenwriting Rules."  I definitely encourage you guys to check it out. He's going continue the series over the next two weeks and I'll be coordinating some of my content here with the topics he's discussing.

Per Scott's schedule, today we're taking on the advice to "never use 'we see.'"  As you may have seen on twitter, this debate never fails to get pros in a frothing frenzy.  I have seen pros more vehemently attack someone who gives this advice than they have attacked actual scammers charging money for their services.  This isn't all on the pros - newbies really get their panties in a twist over the "we see" rule.

I've said my piece on this before, but Scott's goal is to have an archive where we can point people to for the definitive answers for these silly debates.  Basically, we're all tired of these fights and want a handy URL to point writers to so that they can read it and go back to worrying about important things.

I want to start from the understanding that anytime someone argues against a rule, they claim they are told "never" to do something.  That's not a helpful way to begin the debate because it becomes a strawman that's easily knocked down when one exception is found.  And boy do you aspiring writers love finding exceptions. 

Another thing some writers love to do: blame the reader. Do you know why that is? Because it's a lot easier to assume the person finding fault with your work is an idiot than it is to admit that you might, just might, not be as good a writer as you think you are.  And frankly, the people who rail the loudest about readers are generally the people who don't know shit about what they're talking about. 

But really, my overriding point here is that blaming the reader is an easy out.  You can't change the reader, but you CAN change your work.

Here's what readers care about: Is this a good concept? Is this a good script? Did it keep my interest throughout the read? Can I show this to my boss and not be embarrassed by it?

There's no such thing as a truly compelling script that gets a pass because the writer used "we see."  Or because the first act turning point came a little late.  However if your writing is shit and your pacing is garbage, yes you WILL get dinged for a late turning point, or for an over-reliance on "we see" that makes the act of reading a genuine chore.


Here's something that isn't useful to settling the debate - dragging out Black List scripts and counting the instances of "we see" in them.  If you do that and your take away is, "The concerns about 'we see' are full of shit and I should never listen to anyone again about it," you deserve to fail.  You might as well be saying, "Well these Black List scripts used italics and didn't get in trouble so I should make ALL of my description italicized!  And if someone tells me otherwise, they don't know what they're talking about!"

Instead you should ask, "Why is 'we see' such a debated issue?"

Contrary to popular belief, script readers do not go through a script with a scoresheet, marking rule violations and adding them up to some kind of score.  So asking "Why do the pros get away with X while I can't do that?" is overcomplicating a basic fact.  If the pros "got away" with something that you regularly get hit for, it probably means that they did it well.  You probably didn't.

If I'm reading a Craig Mazin script, stumbling onto a "we see" on p. 12 isn't going to convince me he's a shitty writer.  And the same goes for if I'm reading your script.

But if you are starting every paragraph with "we see," you're not a good writer. (And yes, I have seen writers do this.)

If you use "we see" excessively to the point that it clutters up your description and ruins any flow in the reading, you're not a good writer.

My stance on "we see" is generally "Don't overdo it. It's okay if you use it in moderation, preferably sparingly."


My feeling is that 90% of the time it's redundant. Your action descriptions are supposed to be all visual, so if you're writing it, the assumption is we're seeing it. After all, you don't write "We hear" before every line of dialogue, do we?

One notable exception is that "we see" is valuable when we're trying to limit what the audience sees and then replicate that limitation for the viewer. When this debate came up elsewhere, someone noted that in an Indiana Jones script, there's a "we see" that introduces a character wearing a fedora and leather jacket, though he's only shown from behind. Obviously, the "we see" is used to offer that description and give the impression that the character is Indiana Jones when that is not in fact the case.

So it's definitely useful when limiting the information the reader gets. I wouldn't dispute that at all.

However, as with capitalizing and underlining, this "rule" exists because there are always a healthy sampling of newbies who overindulge. Like I said, I once read a script that started nearly every paragraph with "we see" and after a while it just got to be annoying. It was a pretty clear PASS. However, I hasten to add that the Pass wasn't because of the "we sees," just that the "we sees" were merely symptoms of this writer's lack of skill.

If all the dialogue in a script sucks, the answer is not "Never write dialogue," it's, "learn to write better dialogue." And if all the uses of "we see" in a script reach such an epidemic proportion that it becomes cluttered and annoying to follow, the answer is "learn to use the tool properly."

If you write a script with non-linear chronology and the feedback you get is, "This makes no sense, you shouldn't write it this way," then it's not a reasonable response to say, "Tarantino did it in Pulp Fiction so I can ignore you! You don't know what you're talking about!"  No, the answer is, Tarantino did it well and you clearly didn't.  So rather than arguing about being judged unfairly, maybe your energy is better spent figuring out why Tarantino's execution was better than yours.

Most of all, let's knock it off with the strawman rules.  If you're arguing that it's wrong to "never" use something, you're completely missing the debate about why this particular thing might be an issue in some circumstances.

Read Go Into The Story's fantastic screenwriter roundtable

This week Go Into The Story is running a fantastic roundtable interview with screenwriters Chris Borrelli, F. Scott Frazier, Chris McCoy, Justin Rhodes, Greg Russo, and John Swetnam.  They touch on a lot of topics like pitching, rewriting and their general process.  It's absolutely worth your time to check it out, so head on over there and give a read to all the parts that have posted so far.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Why Scott Myers's "The Quest" might be the best thing to happen to aspiring writers in a long time

I've written this blog for over three years now and one of the more frequent email questions I get is: "What are your rates?" On one hand I appreciate that by-and-large, people recognize that my time is valuable and I'm not interested in reading their scripts purely out of the goodness of my heart.

But on the other hand, it makes me aware of how eager people are to plunk down cash for the opinion of a self-proclaimed (and at least in my case, anonymous) expert. Though that's seemed odd to me, I know that some other readers out there are quite reputable people. I always refer those willing to pay for notes to Amanda Pendolino, for example. I've gotten notes from Amanda, and have corresponded with her enough that I have no reservations about her motives and professionalism.

Unfortunately, not everyone is like Amanda. The web is full of unscrupulous consultants and services. I don't have time to check up on all of them. I can offer a few rules of thumb to avoid the most unsavory of the bunch.

If someone charges you $75 to "evaluate" your logline and/or query, they're probably taking advantage of you.

If' you're stupid enough to pay good money - say $75 - for a "brainstorming session," you might lack the hardware necessary for such an interface.

And if you are being asked to pay $500 or more for a few pages of notes, you're wasting your money. I don't care who this person is or what connections they claim to have - NO ONE'S notes are worth that much. High rates like that are indefensible to the point of taking advantage of a writer's desperation and naivete.

Services like this stay in business because it's hard breaking into the industry. Usually, the more expensive the service, the more they're taking advantage of you. Many of you reading this blog are so far outside the industry that it might seem like a good deal to plunk down a few weeks pay on the slim hope you can penetrate the Fort Knox that is Hollywood. That saddens me because I wish there was more I was in a position to do to help. Instead, all I can say is "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is."

With one exception.

Scott Myers has been wrestling with some of the same questions I've faced. The difference between us is that he did something about it. For a while now, he's offered Screenwriting Master Class, a series of classes that range in cost from $95 to $495. For some of you, that might be a lot of money to part with.

Yesterday, his blog carried this announcement.


[I have considered] How to create an alternate route into Hollywood for aspiring screenwriters, especially those of you who are outsiders [no industry connections]. I was a complete outsider to the movie business when I broke in, so my sensitivity to this issue is real and longstanding. Moreover it seems like every day I interface with someone who, lacking connections in Hollywood, expresses frustration about not knowing how to go about getting their foot in the door.

I have kicked around a lot of ideas over the last year, then a few months ago, I hit on something that struck me as being either brilliant — or totally nuts.

I did due diligence and consulted with many people inside the industry as well as writers who have taken classes with me, and every single one of them thought it was a great idea.

So next Monday, I will be announcing Go Into The Story: The Quest.

Bottom line: I will be looking to work with up to four writers in a 24-week Screenwriting Master Class intensive in which they will learn my comprehensive theoretical approach to the craft, then put that knowledge to use prepping and writing a full-length screenplay.

The cost? Nothing.

That’s right, a 6-month deep immersion in screenwriting theory and scriptwriting workshop where you end up with an original screenplay with me as your mentor for the entire process, and you don’t have to spend even a dime.

And if at the end of the process you have written a great script… you will have direct access to industry insiders.

I think this is brilliant. This is Scott putting his money where his mouth is. He believes in his method so much that he'll put it out there for free to four people. It's the antithesis of a lot of the scammers out there - total transparency AND generosity.

This is a great opportunity - in fact, it might be the best opportunity for amateurs that I've seen in a long time. In a worst case scenario, you emerge from this with a very comprehensive education in screenwriting. The connections are merely a bonus. This is your chance to work with one of the best mentors in the business and have motivation to finish a screenplay.

Usually, I make it a point not to strongly endorse any product or service I wouldn't use myself. Because of that, my conscience is clear when I say that anyone reading this blog who's serious about being a writer should submit themselves for consideration as one of Scott's Fortunate Four. If I wasn't personally acquainted with Scott, I'd be spending the next several days getting my submission ready.

I hate the word "guru." I hate gurus who are in it either for self-aggrandizement, or who come up with bizarre and cockamamie theories of writing solely to sell you on a writing seminar or book. I wince when (well-meaning) people call me a "guru."

Scott's not a guru - he's a mentor. And a damn good one at that. He's long been a great supporter of this blog and I consider him one of the most decent people I've "met" during my time in L.A. (And Scott, the next time you're in town, we WILL have to meet face-to-face finally.) He created these programs not for himself - but for you. The altruism and commitment he's shown towards aspiring writers has no equal.

Even if you can't get his services for free, maybe you can consider taking that money you were ready to throw at me (or the opportunists I lambasted earlier) and make an investment in your education and screenwriting future by enrolling in Screenwriting Master Class.

But for now, work on making a kickass case for why you should be the one to get all that at no charge.

Screenwriting Master Class with Scott Myers and Tom Benedek

I don't often endorse screenwriting products, programs or services on this site, and I usually try to have direct experience with a particular service before I offer any sort of endorsement. In the instances when I don't have that direct service, I make certain to admit that fact plainly and point out that my referral is based on the experience of others and not my own.

But there's one guy in the screenwriting blogsphere whose name is pretty much synonymous with "credibility" in my book - Scott Myers of Go Into The Story. Scott has been a long-time friend of the blog and his endorsement was key to putting this site on the map back in July 2009. Anyone who's read Scott's blog knows that he not only has a lot of screenwriting insight and advice to offer, he's also a damn good guy.

So that's why I have zero hesitation about endorsing his new Screenwriting Master Class before it even officially launches. I even wish I had the disposable cash to take it myself, but that'll have to wait for some future date.

So rather than offering my semi-uninformed take on what Scott and his partner screenwriter Tom Benedek have cooked up, I'll let their promotional email speak for itself.


January 3, 2011 is the official launch date of Screenwriting Master Class and all but two of the inaugural course offerings are sold out. Thanks for your interest and support!

A few questions for you:

Have you ever started a script and not finished it?

Has it ever taken you 4, 5, 6 months or more to finish a script?

Have you ever gotten so lost when writing a story, you became incredibly frustrated?

Chances are you did not do enough story preparation. Don’t you think it’s time to approach writing like professionals do and break your story in prep?

We offer a 6-week online Prep: From Concept to Outline writing workshop, a step-by-step way to develop your story, enabling you to crack it before you type FADE IN. The beauty of this approach is three-fold:

* You can go into the page-writing part of the process with confidence because you’ve already broken the story.

* Since you won’t be overwhelmed with finding the story when writing pages, you can focus your creativity on characters, dialogue, mood, pace, etc.

* By devoting six weeks to prep, you will almost assuredly cut the amount of time you spend writing your script and increase the odds you will finish your draft.

At Screenwriting Master Class, we offer two concurrent sections of the Prep: From Concept to Outline class:

* Prep [Beginning to Intermediate writers]: Scott Myers is teaching this course from January 3-February 13.

* Prep [Intermediate to Advanced writers]: Tom Benedek is teaching this course from January 3-February 13.

There are a few spots available for both courses. We are also signing up writers for the next round of Prep courses beginning February 14. To enroll, go here.

Here are a few testimonials from writers who took the Beta version of the Prep: From Concept to Outline course:

“You gave us all just the right amount of ideas, encouragement, and support to discover, develop, and design a real workable blueprint to take into the page writing.”

-- David Broyles

“The Prep class has given me a set of practical tools to use to take the bare glimmer of a concept to outline in six weeks.”

-- James Tichenor

"I honestly can't wait to get started on this script now, and to use what I've learned in Prep to go back and rewrite other scripts."

-- Paul Labich

Approach your writing like the pros do: Break your story in prep!

Don’t forget, if you go to the Screenwriting Master Class website, you can sign up for our monthly newsletter and the free 28-page Spec Script Market Analysis.

Also follow @ScreenwritingMC on Twitter for all Hollywood lit sales – from spec scripts to pitches, novels to comic books – plus screenwriting business news.

If you have any questions, you may contact Scott and Tom here:

info@screenwritingmasterclass.com

Best of luck with the new program, gentlemen!

Screenwriting resources and cool blogs

It's well past time that I throw out some plugs for cool blogs, so here are a few other things to check out in between new posts here:

First, friend of the blog Scott Myers has put his loyal army of writers to work at Go Into The Story and they've come up with a what they consider a definative list of the best scripts in each genre. These are scripts that they feel every screenwriter could learn from. This post over at GITS explain more, and provides a link to the list as well as links to the scripts themselves. (Don't worry - these are all scripts from released films, so nothing here is "in play.")

I also recently stumbled onto "I Liked the Trailer Better," a blog maintained by industry insiders named Brian and Golan. Their introduction reads "We both love movies. We both teach at film schools. We both work in development. One of us worked on MUTUAL APPRECIATION, worships Mumblecore and is Asian. One of us worked on IRON MAN, loves studio fare and is Jewish. We're not going to tell you who is who, to retain the mystery."

I don't usually endorce blogs that aren't updated regularly. These guys don't keep to any kind of consistent posting schedule, but when they do put up a new blog entry, it's pretty comprehensive. It's certainly enough to keep you busy for a little while.

This next plug isn't movie-related, but I know that a fair number of my readers are comic book geeks like myself. A while back I attended a talk by writer Peter David at L.A's Golden Apple and met a few bloggers with Collier Comics who were there to interview Mr. David. I've been lax in tossing them a plug, but I hope to rectify that now with a link to the Peter David interview. Check out their more recent material if you're so inclined.

Box office talk and breaking in over at Go Into The Story

Yesterday Scott Myers over at Go Into The Story had some great advice for aspiring writers about how to work at breaking in after writing their first spec script:

My suggestion to you is this: Focus on the writing. There are various theories - to which I generally subscribe - that a writer has to write x amount of scripts / x amount of words or spend x amount of hours writing in order to really learn the craft. The time you spend worrying about how to get your script to Hollywood is time you could be writing.

So three things: Watch movies. Read scripts. Write pages. That should be your focus for the next several years. Because if you're not ready to work in Hollywood as a screenwriter, then it doesn't matter who you get to read your script: You won't sell it.

Check out the rest here.

While over there, I ran across another article he posted about this year's box office, quoting the LA Times:

Despite a recession that has led to drops in nearly every category of consumer spending, box-office revenue is up 8.6% so far this year in the U.S. and Canada and is certain to ultimately top $10 billion, an all-time record. Unlike in many previous years, the increase isn't being driven by rising ticket prices alone. Attendance is up 4.5% over 2008, according to Hollywood.com Box Office.

[...]

But the big story at the box office is that audiences aren't only rediscovering movies, they're seeing a broader group of them. This year's haul is not being driven by a handful of mega-hits. 2008's No. 1 movie, "The Dark Knight," grossed $533.3 million domestically, compared with $402.1 million for this year's top performer, "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." 2009 has seen an unusually high number of big but not blockbuster hits that grossed between $150 million and $300 million, such as "Star Trek," "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and "Fast and Furious."

Afterwards, Scott offers his thoughts:

Let's review those numbers: Number of movies released down 14%. Box office revenues up 8.6%. Attendance up 4.5%. So wait a minute. This is literally a case of less being more.

Interesting stuff to ponder. You can find the LA Times article here and Scott's analysis here.