"How are submissions to agents for their clients handled?"

 Blaine asks:

I have a question on script length when it’s NOT for a spec submission.

I totally understand why 120 pages is the barometer for submission of spec scripts.

Totally understand time is money.

I can write most of my screenplays to 120 comfortably.

However, in this particular case…. I have written and am now producing  a feature which I am directing.  (Based on a best-selling novel)

The script is 165 pages.

It’s a drama in the vein of THE ENGLISH PATIENT, OUT OF AFRICA….

I am confident of bringing the film at 160 minutes.

OUT OF AFRICA and THE ENGLISH PATIENT both run at  161 and 162 respectively.

Its fiction based on true events and the first time that this story has ever been told on screen.

A love story set against the backdrop of a civil war. This war was and is very close to the hearts of many. Many lives lost, many have been effected and continue to be so.

The script has a good pace (I feel);  the pace is quicker than the two I referred to.

The current situ is we are well on the way to putting the funding plan together , sales estimates etc… so WE are comfortable with the length and funding BUT

In the next few weeks the Script will be going out to Agents in LA as part of the packing campaign.

THE QUESTION:  I wondered if you had any insight or thoughts into how the Agents (of their readers) handle the script length issue? Given they are reading it from the perspective of its appeal to the Talent they represent?

My experience is that when you submit to an agency, your script will be read by the same readers who receive all the general submissions.  Really, when you submit anywhere, unless you have an extremely strong personal connection with the executive you're submitting to, expect that the script will be read by the usual "first filters."

Though the coverage will likely address the viability of the script as a project for that actor specifically, it's also likely to give a broad overview of the entire script's virtues and sins.  The reasons for this are probably obvious - even if there's a great role for an actor in the project, if the rest of the script is a dog, that agent is probably not going to want their client committed to it.

Another reason for the coverage to focus on the entire script in general is that this particular coverage will go into the company-wide database.  At some point, should the script be submitted for any other reason in the future, that old coverage will be called up.  Agency coverage lives FOREVER.  If you resubmit the exact same draft, the script will probably not be re-covered.  If you submit a revised draft, it's possible the script will be sent back to the original reader (if available) so that they can do comparison coverage and note if anything has changed from the previous draft.

You might try to get around this by changing the title of the script, but I can assure you that the people working in most story departments are sharp enough to pull up previous submissions by the same writer and give them a quick check to see if the characters and setting are similar to any of those earlier drafts.  More than once I got a script that the story department correctly flagged as a resubmission when the writer was attempting to make it look like a new script. 

There was also one time where the writer successfully fooled duped the people screening the scripts only to have the bad luck for the original reader (me) to grab the new version by sheer luck of the draw.  Within about three pages I recognized the script, which not only had been retitled, but also had several of the character names changed.  Also, the writer used a different permutation of their own name.  The best part? The rest of the script was about 95% the same.  (And pretty bad, so I didn't feel too sorry for him that his little stunt didn't work.)

So with all that in mind, the script length issue becomes somewhat irrelevant. They either like it or they don't.  The length itself won't be a problem as long as every page is compelling.  That said, always make sure that when you're submitting a long script (or any script, really) that there's not an ounce of fat in it.  If it's really good, the worst that'll probably happen is that the reader will note that perhaps future drafts could find a way to bring the length down.

Mailbag: Don't send me this email! also Length and locations

I've really been lax in dipping into the mailbag, so I'm going to try to clear out a few questions that have been sitting around for months.  Sorry guys!

First, I'm going to withold the writer's name so as to not embarrass them.  This landed in my Inbox with the Subject line "Ill give you 50% rights if u like my script."

If u read n like my slap stick comedy script n gets sold give u 50% of what iget 4 it trust its nt a bad script 

Look, you can't even compose a one (well, technically two, but you forgot a period) sentence email without demonstrating you have no capacity for writing a coherent phrase.  Why would I subject myself to 120 pages of that?

Also, never promise a reader half of your take.  It's just tacky.

From Clint:

You read a lot about screenplays being too long, but when is a screenplay too short?

If you flip to the last page and see "131" you have one impression. What do you think when you flip to the last page and see "91"?

Um, "Yippie?"

At one of my old gigs, the readers would come into the office and take the scripts off of a stack that had be left out for us.  The first thing I'd do before even considering signing a script out would be to look at the page length.  Anything near 90 pages got grabbed first... unless it flunked my second test - opening the cover page and seeing a period date at the start.

I didn't always leave the longer scripts.  A clever title always got me to pick up something closer to 120.  The only time I'd take anything over 120 was when I recognized the writers name, or it had been passed over so many times by others that I was the unlucky fool who had to get it done before the deadline.

Having a 91 page script MIGHT indicate that you're a little light on content, but that's an issue unique to the script.  As far as it repelling a reader - it's not likely to happen.  If you're at 85 pages, that's probably when I start to think the script is likely to be light on story and/or plot twists.

Chris asks:

I had a question that I had not really found touched upon in your blog. It has to do with the naming conventions of slug lines. I have noticed that some screenplays use the same name throughout, while others use a generic term (i.e. SUBURBAN HOME), then once they introduce whose house it is, from that point forward it is referenced as that character's house. 

If you look at the February 19th version of "Crazy, Stupid, Love" by Dan Fogelman, he starts off the house as being "SUBURBAN HOUSE", then once it is stated whose house it is, the house is referenced as "TRACY AND CAL'S HOUSE", then finally, "THE WEAVER HOUSE". While I understand that there really are not any hard and fast rules governing the formatting and other naming conventions, I just wanted to see what someone, in your position, considered the norm. 

Lastly, I understand that an error as minor as this might not play any part into the rejection of a screenplay, I'm trying my best to remove any sort of amateur mistakes as possible. 

I think for clarity, it's usually best to keep the same name throughout.  Sometimes that might not be possible, as when you need to identify a location, but stating it as "Steve's House" might give something away for some reason.  Also, this is one of those things that might affect a script report.  If you're trying to figure out how many scenes take place in a particular location, having inconsistent names for the locations can throw off that count.

So it's probably a good habit to get into, but as you note, it's not something that's likely to affect the Consider/Pass rating on your script.

How long is it? (or, another page-length question)

Igor sent me a rather long email this week:

I've read your comments about the max length for screenplays and agree with you - at least about perceptions and expectations for spec scripts. And yet, I'm puzzled because it seems clear that 1 page-per-minute for comedies is often way off the mark of reality.

The script for Knocked Up that’s available for download directly from Universal is 139 pages. It seems to be a post-production script - i.e., everything in this script, verbatim, was in the 129-minute theatrical version of the movie. (The DVD version has some extra scenes not in this script and it runs 133 minutes.) It's as if this script were a "scriptization" of the movie.

Actually, the count of 139 pages is "nominal". Some pages run 65 lines and most pages run well beyond the typical 53-56 lines. If it were reformatted to 56 lines/page, the page count would be 160 for the 129-minute runtime.

Even 160 pages is a lower-end estimate since the script seems unusually light on Action graffs (which is fine since it is post-production).

Let's stick with 160. If I've done my math correctly, that works out to under 49 seconds per page. Put another way, a 120-page comedy script of this sort would run 97 minutes, which is well within normal limits for this sort of movie. Even a 130-page script would clock in at only 105 minutes. Yet for spec comedy scripts we're told that 90-100 pages is the target.

I'm not trying to suggest in any way that I should be able to submit a 160-page spec script and get the same open reception that Apatow gets.

Rather, I'm making two observations from the flip-side.

First, if I submit a 95-page comedy script, the page length is perceived as perfect. Yet, if I've used the Knocked Up script as a template, the movie produced from my script would clock in at under 78 minutes. Consider a 78-page script landing on your desk.

Second, it's clear that a 120-page comedy script can readily hit the sweet-spot target of a 97-minute comedy movie.

The irony here is that the expected spec-script page-length is shorter for a comedy than for a drama, and yet dialogue pacing in comedies is typically faster and comedies are less likely to have/need extended action-heavy scenes (except, perhaps, to pad them for length).

My take-away from all this math is simply one more indication that we must meet the benchmarks of the marketplace irrespective of their logic. If a customer wants chocolate sauce on his pea soup, so be it.

That said, do you think that the current perception about 1 page-per-minute, even for comedies, is immutable?

It was my understanding that there would be no math.

(Sorry. Kids, if you don't get that reference ask your parents.)

Short answer: yes, I think it's fairly immutable - at least with regards to someone who hasn't broken through. Apatow could probably get away with sending out a script to rival the length of Mario Puzo's works. (Well... maybe not after Funny People, but he certainly could have gotten away with it right after Knocked Up.) I'm sure there are people who will whine that's not fair, but tough. Life isn't fair. This business isn't fair - now put chocolate sauce on my bean soup!

As you point out, what Universal is offering is most likely not any version of the script as it existed while in production. Considering all the ad-libbing that Apatow productions are notorious for, it would not surprise me to learn that the actual shooting script was significantly shorter.

On top of that, when it comes to length I don't know if Apatow would be the guy to emulate. I enjoy many of the guys movies, but my biggest criticism of him is that all of the films he directs feel 15-20 minutes too long. (The exception is Funny People, which is at least an hour too long.) I know I'm hardly alone in this criticism, and I've always felt that the ones he's produced and not directed have felt somewhat tighter and better paced.

There are many great aspects to Apatow's movies, but pacing isn't one of them. I think this is what makes them more fun to watch on DVD or on cable rather than in the theater. It's a lot easier to pop into the film at any point, enjoy a few gags and scenes, and then pop out.

But it's worth noting - Apatow's movies usually have concepts that can be immediately recognized as original and for all the bulk, he usually provides three-dimensional interesting characters. My hunch is that if a script of the quality of Knocked Up landed on someone's desk and it was a little long, it still might get kicked upstairs on the quality of the writing. Still, for a comedy, I wouldn't push it past 120 pages, for the precise perception issues you cite.

After all, a study of ONE film from a director already known for turning out comedies longer than the norm is hardly scientific, no?

How short is too short?

Inspired by last week's discussion of script length, Hank wrote in to ask the following:

I have two out of seven scripts that come in around 65 pages. The rest are between 95 and 120. The shorter scripts "feel complete". I don't know what to add without making it seem like "filler". Can something as short as 65 pages sell?

I doubt it. When was the last time you saw a 65-minute movie? Studio features - and independent films - are 90-120 minutes.

Despite the long development process that a script undergoes after it's purchased, a writer still needs to present a complete, potentially filmable draft if they want any hope of selling their writing. James Cameron might be the only guy who could sell a 65-page script, and even then I bet that the buyers would want reassurance that the project would time out at a lot longer than an hour and five minutes. And as I always say, it's fruitless for people in our position to debate "Could [insert A-list writer here] sell a script that [breaks sacred and acknowledged screenwriting rules?] The director of Avatar and Titanic is always going to be able to get away with stuff that a house painter who writes in his spare time won't. For writers who have yet to break in, screenwriting isn't about the exceptions. It's about the rules.

Now maybe there are some writers - and I'm not saying this is Hank's position - who take the attitude of "The studio can fix it up after they buy it and put someone else on the rewrite. I just want my big check for coming up with this blockbuster idea."

That scenario never happens. No writer should EVER try to sell a script with the thought that "Eh, they can fix it up later." If that's the attitude you're taking, you're not a real writer. A script is not a lotto ticket. Nor is it a used car with a busted radiator that you're trying to unload on an unsuspecting buyer before they notice the flaws.

Carlos left a comment on the original post about writers who turn in extra long scripts, asking:

What are your thoughts on the reverse of this? The writer who might write too little? Or the writer who might struggle to get to that 90th page?

Do you get a lot of those scripts (I'm assuming they are few and far between) and what do you usually notice about them? Poor outlining, bad pacing, not enough information, an idea that shouldn't have been a film, but maybe a short?

It's rare, but when I do get a script this short it's a story that often feels padded just to get to 75 pages or so. Most of the time the story-telling is too straightforward, there are few interesting complications in the plot and the character-work is surface and facile.

So you're pretty much on the money when you muse that scripts like that feel more like prolonged short films then potential features. The writer maybe has a decent idea or a clever concept, but they don't really know how to mine it.

Pros can break the rules - Funny People

I've talked before on this blog about the importance of keeping your script under 120 pages, and how lately, 105-115 pages is the new maximum range. There are always a lot of amateur writers who get defensive when told about these and other maxims. With an air of both paranoia and indignation, they sharply ask, "So if my script is 121 pages long, some idiot is gonna throw it in the trash without reading it? Bullshit! No one does that to Frank Darabount! And haven't you ever heard of Lord of the Rings! That script was long and it broke your rules about not writing sequels at the same time, so HA!"

Hey dummy, come closer... I wanna whisper something to you. No, that's all right. Just a little closer...

WHAP!

Listen to me... You are not Frank Darabount. Once you've made money for the studio you can bend all the rules you like. But right now, you are Joe Nobody Baby Writer. You are plankton. you are the pre-frosh in the fraternity that is Hollywood. I'm trying to help you out here.

When you're writing on spec, consider that 115 page barrier a line that you cross at your own peril. Most of the time, it'll even force you to write a better script. If you're coming up with 130 pages for your buddy comedy, odds are you haven't yet had to cut out some of your weaker jokes. Or perhaps you've got too many extraneous subplots going on. The fatter your script, the better chance you lack a central focus.

I've had to give many a writer these sorts of notes when they've broken the "unspoken rules" and its uncanny how the more argumentative a writer is to these notes, the worse their writing is. It's a sign of laziness - they're determined to reassure themselves that the note-giver knows nothing because then that means they don't have to rewrite. Usually, bad attitude=bad writer.

This is not to say that there aren't good writers who disagree with these points, but they also understand why this note is given, and accept it's a reality they have to deal with. They work on surviving within those constraints without compromising their script.

Why am I saying all this now? Because I just sat through Funny People - a 146 minute Judd Apatow comedy. I like most of Judd's movies. I think he's got some fun concepts, he knows how to create memorable characters, and usually there's a lot of heart to his work. Still, I usually walk out of his films thinking, "That felt about 20 minutes too long." This time I felt that he ran about 45 minutes long.

It has some nice moments, and there were some strong scenes where I really connected with the characters. Adam Sandler gives one of his best performances in a long time as a comedian who is diagnosed with a terminal disease and given low odds of beating it. The first 90 minutes or so is about how he deals with that - realizing that he isn't close to anyone in his life. The only person he tells is an aspiring comedian played by Seth Rogan, who he hires as his assistant. The movie is strong when it pursues that thru-line.

Then, about an hour and a half into the movie, the story changes gears. Viewers of the trailer won't be shocked by this story turn, but I'll still endeavor to be discreet. It's a fair turn, and the plot continues to follow through on elements set up earlier, but once this happens the film becomes an entirely different movie. It's less about the relationship between Sandler and Rogan, and more about the relationship between Sandler and a now-married old flame played by Mrs. Judd Apatow aka Leslie Mann.

Had this not been the work of a man who wrote and directed the $109 million grossing The 40 Year-Old Virgin and the nearly $150 million Knocked Up, it's fair to say that studio execs would have given this script's wandering narrative and large page-count a bit more scrutiny. Considering that the film's opening was something of a disappointment, it might not be a stretch to say that Apatow might not be given quite so much freedom on his next project. At the very least, I can see execs forcing him to turn in tighter running times, and scapegoating Funny People's length for the poor box office returns.

But remember that you - Joe Nobody Baby Writer - are NOT Judd Apatow. If you're writing a comedy, keep it around 105 pages.

Size matters

Quick! What’s the first thing a reader does when they get a script? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

The answer: they turn to the last page to see how long it is. Though as a reader of many years and many more scripts, I can tell you that this is often a formality. An experienced reader can usually peg the script’s length just by eyeing the thickness. We often know a script is too long or too short even before we check the page number.

Roger Ebert once said, “No good movie is too long. No bad movie is too short.” That’s true when it comes to the actual movie, but in the eyes of a reader, the best script is a short script. Just as long as it’s not too short.

It’s generally been understood in the industry that 121 pages is the magic number where a screenplay becomes too long and 89 pages is the magic number where it is too short. As every screenplay writing book will tediously inform you, one page of script is equal to about one minute of screentime. In most cases a Hollywood movie runs between 90 minutes and two hours, hence those “magic numbers.”

When you’re trying to break into the business, the odds are your script isn’t going to be read first by the guy who makes the decision to buy the script, and probably not by the guy directly under him either. If you’re lucky, the script will land on the desk of a professional reader – along with another dozen for that week. If karma’s really out to get you, your script will get passed on to the new intern who just arrived in town a week ago. Either way, the pile of scripts confronting that particular reader will be attacked in the same method – shortest scripts go first.

Remember, readers get paid by the script. Why spend an hour and a half reading a 180 page script when you could get two 90 page scripts done in that time? (Though often a reader makes extra for a longer script.) This results in the longest scripts being put off as long as possible, probably until the end of the week when the reader’s patience is at its lowest ebb. Suddenly, deliberately paced stories feel slow, slow-paced stories feel glacial and REALLY slow scripts get weaseled out of with a quick verbal summary of the hook to the director of development and the exasperated remark – “It’s a three-hour movie!”

Once you’re a known writer who’s sold a few, the usual rules no longer apply. At that point, write all the 140 page scripts you want. If you’re any good, odds are that your tightly written, well-paced story won’t come out that long, and if it does, hopefully it’ll be well-crafted enough that the reader won’t care.

But when you’re Joe Nobody, you’d better believe it matters. To be honest, these days the average industry script is coming in even shorter, close to the 105-115 range. Probably one of the most common critiques a reader will give a script is that the plot is too slow to advance. You might only get one shot with some contacts, so before you send around your script, give it an extra read and make sure that every scene counts.

Expositional scenes are the ones that tend to kill you here. Particularly with films that have complicated plot twists, a writer wants to make sure that they haven’t lost the audience. Unfortunately, this often manifests through overwritten scenes or scenes that spell out what the audience had already figured out on their own. You can usually trust in the intelligence of your audience so when giving your script a final read, there are a few questions you should ask yourself:

Have you entered each scene as late as possible? Are you getting out of there as quickly as possible? When I was learning the art of economic scene length, I studied Law & Order. Though their episodes are more plot driven than character-driven, they cover an incredible length in 44 minutes of airtime. What’s more, almost all of their scenes tend to be short, succinct and give you exactly what you need to see in order to keep the plot moving. If your script’s coming in long, it might be scenes like this that end up being the culprit.

Perception is everything, though. If your reader starts the script already “knowing” that it’s “too long” they’re going to look for the evidence to justify it. They’ll be reading it primed to point out scenes that don’t fit, dialogue that goes too long, and plot points that are needlessly complicated. If – in your heart of hearts – you are certain that this is a story that demands 130 pages, by all means submit it. But cutting 11 pages and getting it down to 119 might make all the difference in how the reader perceives it.

Every reader has a horror story about the 150 page opus that went nowhere that they had to read. The vast majority of “too long” scripts are written by people whose writing would be unbearable even at 90 pages. It doesn’t take too long for a reader to start noticing a correlation: Too long = bad writing.

Is it fair? No. Is it the nature of how readers work? Almost to a man.