Great guest article by entertainment attorney Jesse Rosenblatt over on Stephen Hoover's blog on how much you should expect to earn on your first script sale. Go over there and check it out now.
Here's an excerpt:
A burning question on any first time writer’s mind is – “How much will I get paid for my feature film screenplay sale?”
It’s a valid question, though a difficult one to answer. You’ve spent months, maybe even years, writing your script. You want to get paid! And you need to make sure you’re protected and don’t sell yourself short. Often times, writers are willing to forego monetary compensation in exchange for the hope they’ll receive credit on a completed film to help launch their writing career.
While I certainly understand that perspective, and in some cases it’s a valid point of view, please remember – if others are getting paid well for their contributions to the project, you should too. Every great film starts with a great script.
I want to make clear that the typical structure of a screenplay deal is not an outright purchase but rather an option/purchase agreement. Let me briefly explain what this is for those of you who are unfamiliar with the concept: an option/ purchase agreement is one where the prospective buyer (a producer, production company, studio, etc.) agrees to pay you some money (generally 10% of the potential purchase price or less) in exchange for a period of time (typically called the “option period”) where your script is off the market and the producer can develop it...
Rest of the article.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Update On Logline Contest
Been getting some e-mails about this. I'll be making plenty of announcements regarding the official announcement of the contest, which will probably be about two or three weeks from now. So you should be prepping those loglines as we speak. Also, I've decided to use Paypal for those of you who want to submit more than 1 logline, with a package of up to 10 loglines for 5 dollars. So if you don't have a Paypal account yet and you plan on submitting more than 1 logline, please go set one up now! Can't wait to start reading these.
Victoria Falls
Genre: Drama
Premise: A look at the white commercial farming industry in Zimbabwe in 2002, the year of the first opposing political party to president Mugabe’s tyranic reign.
About: Victoria Falls is one of the winners of this year's Nicholl’s Fellowship. The Nicholl's Fellowship is considered by most to be the most prestigious screenplay competition on the planet. Although winning the Fellowship is by no means a path to success (many winners we never hear from again), there are some who have used it to launch great careers. Recently mentioned on the site are previous Fellows Ehren Kruger (1996) and Anthony Jaswinski (1997). Kruger's winning script was the excellent unconventional twist-ending thriller, "Arlington Road."
Writer: Matt Ackley
President Robert Mugabe
Victoria Falls, even on its best day, even with a great director, even with an A-List actor, is never going to light up the box office. It's just not that kind of movie. The themes are heavy here. The subject matter will challenge you. Thinking is a requirement. It feels like something you'd see nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars.
What I like about Victoria Falls is that it's not what we think it is. Since the script is set in Zimbabwe, we're automatically assuming it's going to be about a bunch of oppressed Africans. Yet the focus is actually on a family of rich white farmers who are kicked off their land without reason by Zimbabwe's tyrant of a leader, the dreaded Robert Mugabe. What I don't like about Victoria Falls is that there are large sections of the script where I felt like I should be taking notes so I could ace my History test tomorrow. First and foremost to me, movies represent entertainment. And anytime I feel like I'm being taught something, I get squeamish. I think the true mark of a great historical or socially relevant film, is to teach you without you realizing you're being taught. And that wasn't my experience here.
So as long as class is in session, you're probably wondering what Victoria Falls is. It's actually the name of the biggest waterfall in Africa. And as you can see in the below picture, it's one of the few waterfalls where you can actually lay over the edge without going over. Because people need to lay over 700 foot waterfalls. Yeah, that's exactly what I want to do when I go to Africa. Right after I dive head first into a Volcano and swim into the heart of a tsunami.
The story centers around two best friends, poor Zimbabwe native Ojaji, and the rich white son of a local farming family, Nico. Nico's father is nearing the end of his working days and would like for Nico to take over the farm. But Nico has other ideas. He wants to grab a pot of the family gold and head over to America to party it up. And he wants Ojaji to come with him. The two are all set to bounce when Ojaji feels some guilt for leaving his crumbling country, a country where 10 trillion Zimbabwe dollars is worth 3 U.S. dollars. In an ironic twist of fate, he takes the job Nico was supposed to take, managing his father's farm.
Meanwhile, for the first time (In its history?) Zimbabwe has an opposition party. Mugabe, who is painted as a seriously bad dude, will do anything to squash the uprising. So in order to appeal to the masses, he promises that, if elected, the rich white farmers will be sent back to their country, and the locals will run all the farms themselves. It's a bold but effective claim. Zimbabwe is home to 5000 whites and 12 million blacks. Yet whites own more than 70% of the farmland. There's a predicable amount of animosity towards them as a result, and the chance to send them packing strikes a chord. Ojaji is then forced to become a bit of a politician himself, as he tries to save the farm from the relentless locals, who would like for nothing more than to burn the farmhouse down along with everyone inside it.
Zimbabwean politics. Farm management. An upcoming election. What more can you ask for in a piece of summer entertainment, right?
What we have here is a good writer who's maybe trying to do too much. I mean there's a lot going on in this script. We have the two best friends going off in different directions. We have a political battle between a renegade party and a dictator. We have Ojaji trying to run a farm. We have Ojaji's sister secretly promoting the opposing party. We have a strange love triangle between Ojaji, Nico, and an American woman. I just felt that at a certain point, we lost focus. What was Victoria Falls about? I wasn't always sure.
That's not to say the script isn't deserving of a Fellowship. There are some wonderful moments and the final act rewards you for your patience with an intense almost action-movie like ending. But the foundation of the story - asking us to sympathize for the rich white man amongst the poverty and struggles of so many less fortunate people - is a tough pill to swallow. From a purely story point-of-view, it's the same reason why I didn't like Friday Night Lights (the film). I couldn't figure out why I was supposed to root for a team that always won. I tend to pull for the underdog.
I'm happy the writer had this competition, because I'm not sure the script would've been recognized otherwise. If you liked Gaza or The Untitled Bill Carter Project, you might want to check this out. The subject matter here just wasn't my cup of tea, and ultimately kept me from falling for this story the same way the Nicholl's judges did.
Script link: **sorry guys - asked to take this down.**
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: This is a competition script. Plain and simple. You could send this logline to a thousand agencies and you'd probably get 999 rejections. But there's a lesson here. You need to understand how marketable your idea is before you type Fade In. Know that if you're going to write the next Victoria Falls, agents, producers, and managers will likely turn their cheeks. Contests will probably be your only route. Write something more mainstream with a hook, and the logline does the work for you - getting you reads everywhere you submit. As long as you know what you're in for, you can make a more informed decision and write any kind of screenplay you want.
Premise: A look at the white commercial farming industry in Zimbabwe in 2002, the year of the first opposing political party to president Mugabe’s tyranic reign.
About: Victoria Falls is one of the winners of this year's Nicholl’s Fellowship. The Nicholl's Fellowship is considered by most to be the most prestigious screenplay competition on the planet. Although winning the Fellowship is by no means a path to success (many winners we never hear from again), there are some who have used it to launch great careers. Recently mentioned on the site are previous Fellows Ehren Kruger (1996) and Anthony Jaswinski (1997). Kruger's winning script was the excellent unconventional twist-ending thriller, "Arlington Road."
Writer: Matt Ackley
President Robert MugabeVictoria Falls, even on its best day, even with a great director, even with an A-List actor, is never going to light up the box office. It's just not that kind of movie. The themes are heavy here. The subject matter will challenge you. Thinking is a requirement. It feels like something you'd see nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars.
What I like about Victoria Falls is that it's not what we think it is. Since the script is set in Zimbabwe, we're automatically assuming it's going to be about a bunch of oppressed Africans. Yet the focus is actually on a family of rich white farmers who are kicked off their land without reason by Zimbabwe's tyrant of a leader, the dreaded Robert Mugabe. What I don't like about Victoria Falls is that there are large sections of the script where I felt like I should be taking notes so I could ace my History test tomorrow. First and foremost to me, movies represent entertainment. And anytime I feel like I'm being taught something, I get squeamish. I think the true mark of a great historical or socially relevant film, is to teach you without you realizing you're being taught. And that wasn't my experience here.
So as long as class is in session, you're probably wondering what Victoria Falls is. It's actually the name of the biggest waterfall in Africa. And as you can see in the below picture, it's one of the few waterfalls where you can actually lay over the edge without going over. Because people need to lay over 700 foot waterfalls. Yeah, that's exactly what I want to do when I go to Africa. Right after I dive head first into a Volcano and swim into the heart of a tsunami.
The story centers around two best friends, poor Zimbabwe native Ojaji, and the rich white son of a local farming family, Nico. Nico's father is nearing the end of his working days and would like for Nico to take over the farm. But Nico has other ideas. He wants to grab a pot of the family gold and head over to America to party it up. And he wants Ojaji to come with him. The two are all set to bounce when Ojaji feels some guilt for leaving his crumbling country, a country where 10 trillion Zimbabwe dollars is worth 3 U.S. dollars. In an ironic twist of fate, he takes the job Nico was supposed to take, managing his father's farm.
Meanwhile, for the first time (In its history?) Zimbabwe has an opposition party. Mugabe, who is painted as a seriously bad dude, will do anything to squash the uprising. So in order to appeal to the masses, he promises that, if elected, the rich white farmers will be sent back to their country, and the locals will run all the farms themselves. It's a bold but effective claim. Zimbabwe is home to 5000 whites and 12 million blacks. Yet whites own more than 70% of the farmland. There's a predicable amount of animosity towards them as a result, and the chance to send them packing strikes a chord. Ojaji is then forced to become a bit of a politician himself, as he tries to save the farm from the relentless locals, who would like for nothing more than to burn the farmhouse down along with everyone inside it.
Zimbabwean politics. Farm management. An upcoming election. What more can you ask for in a piece of summer entertainment, right?
What we have here is a good writer who's maybe trying to do too much. I mean there's a lot going on in this script. We have the two best friends going off in different directions. We have a political battle between a renegade party and a dictator. We have Ojaji trying to run a farm. We have Ojaji's sister secretly promoting the opposing party. We have a strange love triangle between Ojaji, Nico, and an American woman. I just felt that at a certain point, we lost focus. What was Victoria Falls about? I wasn't always sure.
That's not to say the script isn't deserving of a Fellowship. There are some wonderful moments and the final act rewards you for your patience with an intense almost action-movie like ending. But the foundation of the story - asking us to sympathize for the rich white man amongst the poverty and struggles of so many less fortunate people - is a tough pill to swallow. From a purely story point-of-view, it's the same reason why I didn't like Friday Night Lights (the film). I couldn't figure out why I was supposed to root for a team that always won. I tend to pull for the underdog.
I'm happy the writer had this competition, because I'm not sure the script would've been recognized otherwise. If you liked Gaza or The Untitled Bill Carter Project, you might want to check this out. The subject matter here just wasn't my cup of tea, and ultimately kept me from falling for this story the same way the Nicholl's judges did.
Script link: **sorry guys - asked to take this down.**
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: This is a competition script. Plain and simple. You could send this logline to a thousand agencies and you'd probably get 999 rejections. But there's a lesson here. You need to understand how marketable your idea is before you type Fade In. Know that if you're going to write the next Victoria Falls, agents, producers, and managers will likely turn their cheeks. Contests will probably be your only route. Write something more mainstream with a hook, and the logline does the work for you - getting you reads everywhere you submit. As long as you know what you're in for, you can make a more informed decision and write any kind of screenplay you want.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Henry's Crime
Genre: Heist/Drama
Premise: A toll booth worker takes the blame for a bank robbing he was tricked into. When he gets out of jail, he decides to rob the same bank in order to justify his sentence.
About: This is the recently announced project Keanu Reeves (no relation) signed onto, which he will also produce. It will be directed by Malcolm Venville. Stephen Hamel and Lemore Syvan will produce along with Reeves. – Some of the trades are calling this a romantic comedy. Though I can see why classifying the script may have been difficult, there’s not an ounce of comedy in here, so you can kaput that rumor right now. Sacha Gervasi is probably best known for writing 2004’s “The Terminal” for Steven Spielberg.
Writer: Sacha Gervasi
Details: 121 pages (unknown draft date)
So how *does* one classify Henry’s Crime? We’ve determined it isn’t a romantic comedy. But it does have romance. Yet I wouldn’t call it a romance. It’s got a lot of drama, that’s for sure. Oh, and it’s also a heist flick. Well… It’s not quite a heist flick. You’d need a lot of heisting going on for that. I guess you would call this a soft blend of all of these, with an exclamation point after “soft”. I’m having a hard time forming my thoughts for this review because Henry’s Crime didn’t really leave a lasting impression on me. It’s minimalist to the extreme. It’s reserved. It’s passive. And for that reason, it moves through you like a daydream. You’re experiencing it but when you wake up…you only remember bits and pieces.
The premise is actually kind of neat. A simple toll booth worker named Henry is unknowingly roped into a bank robbing by a few loose acquaintances. When it all goes to shit, Henry’s the one who gets caught. He’s told that if he names the men involved, he’ll go free. For reasons that are still unclear to me, he doesn’t name the men. This leads to a four year stint in jail, where he meets a wise older gentleman named Max. They become best friends. The sage Max is always pushing Henry to find his point here on earth. Why is he here? Henry doesn’t know. After Henry gets out of jail, he goes in search of this point. He ends up heading back to the bank he didn’t rob, and that’s where it hits him. He went to jail for a crime he didn’t commit. So he might as well go ahead and commit the crime.
So far, so good.
Except that’s pretty much where the interesting stuff ends. Henry’s Crime feels like a script desperately searching for a way to fill up all the empty space around that intriguing premise. And although there are some original choices made in the story, they never really feel like they’re a part of it.
Henry himself is quite a vapid character. He rarely interacts with life unless it interacts with him first. He doesn't offer his opinions on matters unless someone asks him. He will speak only when spoken to. In fact, most of Henry’s vocabulary revolves around different ways of saying, “I don’t know.” To be honest, Henry feels a lot like a robot. I couldn’t help but think of Jeff Bridges in Star Man. Remember how that character always seemed confused and asked a lot of questions? That’s pretty much Henry here. Except Henry is from earth. I know, I know. There are a million Keanu Reeves jokes to be made here. But I actually like Reeves and respect how he takes chances on material. Only a few A-list stars are that brave. But this role may even be too introverted for him.
Anyway, eventually Max gets out of prison and Henry convinces him to help him with his plan. It so happens that there’s an old theatre company right next to the bank, and that underneath it is an ancient water tunnel that nobody knows about, which leads to the bank vault. Henry ends up befriending a young actress who works at the theatre, and the two strike up a relationship. Eventually (and I wouldn’t fault you if you laughed here), Henry and Max realize that they can only get into the tunnel through one of the actor’s rooms. So Henry tries out for and lands the lead part in the play, which allows Max to use his room to dig into the tunnel.
I mean…that’s about as bold of a choice as you can make. Because if it doesn’t work, it’s gonna fall faster than the floor Max is standing on when he breaks through.
Towards the end, things start getting Prison Break in nature (can anyone explain to me how that show lasted more than one season? THEY BROKE OUT OF THE PRISON!!! There's nothing left to do!). The original gang leader who robbed the bank first (and screwed over Henry), finds out about the heist and wants in. So does the security guard who spotted Henry during that original robbing (though his interest feels more like a convenient way to give them a man on the inside). And while this is the one place where the script adds a healthy dose of conflict, the heist itself doesn’t sustain it.
I fully admit there's a chance here I didn't "get" this story. I didn't read the trades until afterwards and therefore had not heard of people classifying this as a "Capra-esque" romantic comedy. Looking back at it, that surely would've colored my approach to the read. But I think it's better I went in knowing nothing. Because that way I read the material for what it was. And I never felt any comedy in here at all. In fact, I thought this was a pretty heavy drama. Who knows? Maybe Variety got it wrong and everyone else picked it up. I will give this to Gervasi. He’s written something very original. But I simply couldn’t get into it.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: This very well may be a pet peeve of mine so I’m not going to speak for the rest of Hollywood here. But one thing that drives me crazy is characters that only ask questions. One of the reasons I hated Kevin Smith’s Dogma so much, is that all the main character does is ask questions. That’s all she does the entire script. I never learned a single thing about her because she was too busy asking everyone else questions. And while Henry isn’t that bad, he definitely spends a lot of time asking questions, and as a result, I never get to know who *he* is. Without knowing your main character, it’s hard to identify with and root for him. And that was my big problem with this script. I never got a sense of who Henry was, so I didn’t really care about his life.
Premise: A toll booth worker takes the blame for a bank robbing he was tricked into. When he gets out of jail, he decides to rob the same bank in order to justify his sentence.
About: This is the recently announced project Keanu Reeves (no relation) signed onto, which he will also produce. It will be directed by Malcolm Venville. Stephen Hamel and Lemore Syvan will produce along with Reeves. – Some of the trades are calling this a romantic comedy. Though I can see why classifying the script may have been difficult, there’s not an ounce of comedy in here, so you can kaput that rumor right now. Sacha Gervasi is probably best known for writing 2004’s “The Terminal” for Steven Spielberg.
Writer: Sacha Gervasi
Details: 121 pages (unknown draft date)
So how *does* one classify Henry’s Crime? We’ve determined it isn’t a romantic comedy. But it does have romance. Yet I wouldn’t call it a romance. It’s got a lot of drama, that’s for sure. Oh, and it’s also a heist flick. Well… It’s not quite a heist flick. You’d need a lot of heisting going on for that. I guess you would call this a soft blend of all of these, with an exclamation point after “soft”. I’m having a hard time forming my thoughts for this review because Henry’s Crime didn’t really leave a lasting impression on me. It’s minimalist to the extreme. It’s reserved. It’s passive. And for that reason, it moves through you like a daydream. You’re experiencing it but when you wake up…you only remember bits and pieces.
The premise is actually kind of neat. A simple toll booth worker named Henry is unknowingly roped into a bank robbing by a few loose acquaintances. When it all goes to shit, Henry’s the one who gets caught. He’s told that if he names the men involved, he’ll go free. For reasons that are still unclear to me, he doesn’t name the men. This leads to a four year stint in jail, where he meets a wise older gentleman named Max. They become best friends. The sage Max is always pushing Henry to find his point here on earth. Why is he here? Henry doesn’t know. After Henry gets out of jail, he goes in search of this point. He ends up heading back to the bank he didn’t rob, and that’s where it hits him. He went to jail for a crime he didn’t commit. So he might as well go ahead and commit the crime.
So far, so good.
Except that’s pretty much where the interesting stuff ends. Henry’s Crime feels like a script desperately searching for a way to fill up all the empty space around that intriguing premise. And although there are some original choices made in the story, they never really feel like they’re a part of it.
Henry himself is quite a vapid character. He rarely interacts with life unless it interacts with him first. He doesn't offer his opinions on matters unless someone asks him. He will speak only when spoken to. In fact, most of Henry’s vocabulary revolves around different ways of saying, “I don’t know.” To be honest, Henry feels a lot like a robot. I couldn’t help but think of Jeff Bridges in Star Man. Remember how that character always seemed confused and asked a lot of questions? That’s pretty much Henry here. Except Henry is from earth. I know, I know. There are a million Keanu Reeves jokes to be made here. But I actually like Reeves and respect how he takes chances on material. Only a few A-list stars are that brave. But this role may even be too introverted for him.
Anyway, eventually Max gets out of prison and Henry convinces him to help him with his plan. It so happens that there’s an old theatre company right next to the bank, and that underneath it is an ancient water tunnel that nobody knows about, which leads to the bank vault. Henry ends up befriending a young actress who works at the theatre, and the two strike up a relationship. Eventually (and I wouldn’t fault you if you laughed here), Henry and Max realize that they can only get into the tunnel through one of the actor’s rooms. So Henry tries out for and lands the lead part in the play, which allows Max to use his room to dig into the tunnel.
I mean…that’s about as bold of a choice as you can make. Because if it doesn’t work, it’s gonna fall faster than the floor Max is standing on when he breaks through.
Towards the end, things start getting Prison Break in nature (can anyone explain to me how that show lasted more than one season? THEY BROKE OUT OF THE PRISON!!! There's nothing left to do!). The original gang leader who robbed the bank first (and screwed over Henry), finds out about the heist and wants in. So does the security guard who spotted Henry during that original robbing (though his interest feels more like a convenient way to give them a man on the inside). And while this is the one place where the script adds a healthy dose of conflict, the heist itself doesn’t sustain it.
I fully admit there's a chance here I didn't "get" this story. I didn't read the trades until afterwards and therefore had not heard of people classifying this as a "Capra-esque" romantic comedy. Looking back at it, that surely would've colored my approach to the read. But I think it's better I went in knowing nothing. Because that way I read the material for what it was. And I never felt any comedy in here at all. In fact, I thought this was a pretty heavy drama. Who knows? Maybe Variety got it wrong and everyone else picked it up. I will give this to Gervasi. He’s written something very original. But I simply couldn’t get into it.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: This very well may be a pet peeve of mine so I’m not going to speak for the rest of Hollywood here. But one thing that drives me crazy is characters that only ask questions. One of the reasons I hated Kevin Smith’s Dogma so much, is that all the main character does is ask questions. That’s all she does the entire script. I never learned a single thing about her because she was too busy asking everyone else questions. And while Henry isn’t that bad, he definitely spends a lot of time asking questions, and as a result, I never get to know who *he* is. Without knowing your main character, it’s hard to identify with and root for him. And that was my big problem with this script. I never got a sense of who Henry was, so I didn’t really care about his life.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Dinner For Schmucks
Genre: Comedy
Premise: A group of rich friends have a monthly dinner ritual where they each bring the biggest weirdo they can find, then discreetly make fun of them over the course of the evening.
About: Add yet another project heavy-set in-boy Zach Galifianakis is attached to. The film will co-star Paul Rudd and be directed by Jay Roach. The film is actually a remake of a French film that came out about a decade ago (Having some major déjà vu here after The Tourist review). Galifianakis’ part was originally to be played by Sacha Baron Cohen when he was attached to every comedy in town. When he dropped out, so did the project, and Roach has been trying to get it going again ever since. It should be noted that, like a lot of comedies, these things are rewritten right up to the end, so a few story points may have changed from this relatively older draft.
Writer: Andy Borowitz (Revisions by Cinco Paul & Ken Daurio and Jon Vitti -- Further revisions by David Guion & Michael Handelman -- Based on the original French film "Le Diner de Cons" by Francis Veber)
Details: 118 pages (February 2007 draft)
I guess if there’s anyone qualified to review this script, it’s me. I’ve actually seen the original French film it’s based on. In fact, I’ve seen quite a few French comedies. I don’t know what it is about them that I’m drawn to. I mean, the French aren’t exactly known for their sense of humor. But the films are kind of like bastardized versions of our own ridiculous comedies. So they take everything about them that’s ridiculous, and make them even more ridiculous. I don’t know if I ever really laugh at them, so much as marvel at how strangely seductive and amusing they can be. So when I heard there would be an American film based off of a French film, that bases its principles off American films, I thought at the very least I might be able to offer some commentary on how insane that is.
The story is about a group of rich assholes that have a monthly dinner ritual whereby they each find and bring with them a “schmuck.” Someone so out of touch with the world, so strange, so ridiculous, that they’re unaware of just how idiotic they are. The person who brings the strangest “schmuck” ends up “winning”. Our hero, Tim, is on the verge of landing a 100 million dollar investment for his company, and his boss, in anticipation of Tim’s newfound status, has invited him to one of these infamous dinners. Tim is stressing out as there are only a couple of days left before the dinner and he still hasn’t found a schmuck. If he doesn’t impress these men, there’s a good chance they won’t let him into “the club.”
Enter Barry Speck (no doubt Zach Galifianakis), an IRS auditor who recreates famous moments throughout history (think the moon landing) using taxidermied mice. To say that Speck is a bit of an odd duck would be selling him short. The guy recreates history...with dead rodents. Tim realizes right away he’s found his golden ticket and asks Barry to join him for dinner in a couple of days. Barry, not used to any attention whatsoever, is thrilled by the invitation and accepts.
Back at home, Tim prepares his beautiful girlfriend Julie for their Jeffersons moment. But when Tim explains what goes down in these exclusive dinners, Julie is horrified and tells him he shouldn’t go. Of course, since that means throwing everything he’s worked so hard for down the drain, Tim’s quite reluctant. This inaction leads to Julie huffing and puffing and eventually claiming she needs some "time away to think about their relationship". So she leaves. And wouldn’t you know it, as soon as she does, Barry shows up. Tim asks him what the hell he’s doing here and Barry says he’s here for the dinner. Tim informs him that the dinner isn’t until tomorrow but Barry refuses to accept this. He’s convinced the dinner is tonight. Tim tries to inform him that he’s the only one between the two who would know when the dinner actually was. But Barry’s not buying it.
After Barry worms his way into Tim’s apartment, he eventually finds out that Julie’s run out on him. This hits Barry particularly hard because he experienced a particularly harsh dumping himself. After talking it through, Barry convinces Tim that Julie is probably cheating on him with her slimy boss, Kieren. Hence begins the main thrust of the story – Tim and Barry desperately trying to prevent Julie from being with Kieren. Naturally, whatever plan they come up with, Barry ends up making it ten times worse than it would’ve been had they done nothing at all. When Tim realizes just how disastrous Barry is, he tries to get rid of him. But the thing about Barry is, once he’s in your life, he doesn’t leave.
For a movie called “Dinner For Schmucks”, it’s somewhat odd that the dinner doesn’t happen until the last 30 pages of the screenplay, but like I mentioned before, this is a French film. And for better or worse, the French throw logic, along with movie conventions, out the window.
There are some good things and some bad things here. One issue I had was Julie deciding she needed to "get away" because of the schmuck dinner. I mean come on. There are worse problems going on in relationships *every day*. If that’s what’s going to break you up, then keep walking honey, cause you were never going to make it in the first place. One thing that will undoubtedly work though is Zack Galifianakis as Barry. I mean, if there was ever a more perfect marriage between actor and character, I’d like to see it. Barry is such an odd weirdo and Galifianakis has so claimed the crown on odd weirdos, that the two couldn’t be more right for each other. But that doesn't necessarily make it funny. And that's where Schmucks runs into some trouble. Is this movie supposed to make you laugh? Or is it supposed to make you uncomfortable with Barry's character? Cause it definitely achieves the latter. I'm not so sure it achieves the former.
The jury will be deliberating on this one for sure. I think at best it can be a solid middle-of-the-road comedy. At worst it can be a huge misfire, with the audience sort of wondering what the focus is and seeing the humor as too weird. Regardless of what it becomes, the script isn’t quite up to snuff. It would be interesting to see what’s happened since, but I can't recommend this draft.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: I try to preach this to any writer who will listen. It’s one of my big things and that’s why I keep harping on it. Make sure your script abides by real-life logic, not movie-world logic. I simply did not buy this idea that Julie would get so upset about a business dinner that she'd leave Tim. This falls into the "movie logic" world, where you need something to happen (in this case, Tim and Julie need to be split up) so you come up with a bogus reason to do so, regardless of if it would ever happen in real life. I'm telling you, readers and audiences aren't dumb. They'll sniff this shit out. I realize there's some leeway involved in comedies, but not on the critical plot turns that set up your movie. You gotta make sure that stuff is 100% believable.
Premise: A group of rich friends have a monthly dinner ritual where they each bring the biggest weirdo they can find, then discreetly make fun of them over the course of the evening.
About: Add yet another project heavy-set in-boy Zach Galifianakis is attached to. The film will co-star Paul Rudd and be directed by Jay Roach. The film is actually a remake of a French film that came out about a decade ago (Having some major déjà vu here after The Tourist review). Galifianakis’ part was originally to be played by Sacha Baron Cohen when he was attached to every comedy in town. When he dropped out, so did the project, and Roach has been trying to get it going again ever since. It should be noted that, like a lot of comedies, these things are rewritten right up to the end, so a few story points may have changed from this relatively older draft.
Writer: Andy Borowitz (Revisions by Cinco Paul & Ken Daurio and Jon Vitti -- Further revisions by David Guion & Michael Handelman -- Based on the original French film "Le Diner de Cons" by Francis Veber)
Details: 118 pages (February 2007 draft)
I guess if there’s anyone qualified to review this script, it’s me. I’ve actually seen the original French film it’s based on. In fact, I’ve seen quite a few French comedies. I don’t know what it is about them that I’m drawn to. I mean, the French aren’t exactly known for their sense of humor. But the films are kind of like bastardized versions of our own ridiculous comedies. So they take everything about them that’s ridiculous, and make them even more ridiculous. I don’t know if I ever really laugh at them, so much as marvel at how strangely seductive and amusing they can be. So when I heard there would be an American film based off of a French film, that bases its principles off American films, I thought at the very least I might be able to offer some commentary on how insane that is.
The story is about a group of rich assholes that have a monthly dinner ritual whereby they each find and bring with them a “schmuck.” Someone so out of touch with the world, so strange, so ridiculous, that they’re unaware of just how idiotic they are. The person who brings the strangest “schmuck” ends up “winning”. Our hero, Tim, is on the verge of landing a 100 million dollar investment for his company, and his boss, in anticipation of Tim’s newfound status, has invited him to one of these infamous dinners. Tim is stressing out as there are only a couple of days left before the dinner and he still hasn’t found a schmuck. If he doesn’t impress these men, there’s a good chance they won’t let him into “the club.”
Enter Barry Speck (no doubt Zach Galifianakis), an IRS auditor who recreates famous moments throughout history (think the moon landing) using taxidermied mice. To say that Speck is a bit of an odd duck would be selling him short. The guy recreates history...with dead rodents. Tim realizes right away he’s found his golden ticket and asks Barry to join him for dinner in a couple of days. Barry, not used to any attention whatsoever, is thrilled by the invitation and accepts.
Back at home, Tim prepares his beautiful girlfriend Julie for their Jeffersons moment. But when Tim explains what goes down in these exclusive dinners, Julie is horrified and tells him he shouldn’t go. Of course, since that means throwing everything he’s worked so hard for down the drain, Tim’s quite reluctant. This inaction leads to Julie huffing and puffing and eventually claiming she needs some "time away to think about their relationship". So she leaves. And wouldn’t you know it, as soon as she does, Barry shows up. Tim asks him what the hell he’s doing here and Barry says he’s here for the dinner. Tim informs him that the dinner isn’t until tomorrow but Barry refuses to accept this. He’s convinced the dinner is tonight. Tim tries to inform him that he’s the only one between the two who would know when the dinner actually was. But Barry’s not buying it.
After Barry worms his way into Tim’s apartment, he eventually finds out that Julie’s run out on him. This hits Barry particularly hard because he experienced a particularly harsh dumping himself. After talking it through, Barry convinces Tim that Julie is probably cheating on him with her slimy boss, Kieren. Hence begins the main thrust of the story – Tim and Barry desperately trying to prevent Julie from being with Kieren. Naturally, whatever plan they come up with, Barry ends up making it ten times worse than it would’ve been had they done nothing at all. When Tim realizes just how disastrous Barry is, he tries to get rid of him. But the thing about Barry is, once he’s in your life, he doesn’t leave.
For a movie called “Dinner For Schmucks”, it’s somewhat odd that the dinner doesn’t happen until the last 30 pages of the screenplay, but like I mentioned before, this is a French film. And for better or worse, the French throw logic, along with movie conventions, out the window.
There are some good things and some bad things here. One issue I had was Julie deciding she needed to "get away" because of the schmuck dinner. I mean come on. There are worse problems going on in relationships *every day*. If that’s what’s going to break you up, then keep walking honey, cause you were never going to make it in the first place. One thing that will undoubtedly work though is Zack Galifianakis as Barry. I mean, if there was ever a more perfect marriage between actor and character, I’d like to see it. Barry is such an odd weirdo and Galifianakis has so claimed the crown on odd weirdos, that the two couldn’t be more right for each other. But that doesn't necessarily make it funny. And that's where Schmucks runs into some trouble. Is this movie supposed to make you laugh? Or is it supposed to make you uncomfortable with Barry's character? Cause it definitely achieves the latter. I'm not so sure it achieves the former.
The jury will be deliberating on this one for sure. I think at best it can be a solid middle-of-the-road comedy. At worst it can be a huge misfire, with the audience sort of wondering what the focus is and seeing the humor as too weird. Regardless of what it becomes, the script isn’t quite up to snuff. It would be interesting to see what’s happened since, but I can't recommend this draft.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: I try to preach this to any writer who will listen. It’s one of my big things and that’s why I keep harping on it. Make sure your script abides by real-life logic, not movie-world logic. I simply did not buy this idea that Julie would get so upset about a business dinner that she'd leave Tim. This falls into the "movie logic" world, where you need something to happen (in this case, Tim and Julie need to be split up) so you come up with a bogus reason to do so, regardless of if it would ever happen in real life. I'm telling you, readers and audiences aren't dumb. They'll sniff this shit out. I realize there's some leeway involved in comedies, but not on the critical plot turns that set up your movie. You gotta make sure that stuff is 100% believable.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Producers, Agents, Managers - I have a script for you
note: Scroll down for Friday's review
So a few months ago I held a free contest over on the Done Deal Message Boards. It was a very simple competition. The first 100 people to contact me got in. Over the next three months I read all 100 scripts. In the end, there were three that really impressed me. I can't speak about the top two because they're currently being looked at by two of the top agencies in town, but as for this last one, all I can say is I really really liked this script and was shocked that the writer wasn't already represented.
Without going into too much detail, the script is sort of an understated cross between Basic Instinct and Gothika (although Gothika hinted at the supernatural. This is *not* supernatural. It's based completely in reality). It also has shades of The Stepfather and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. The thing that scares me the most is: How well do you know the person closest to you? We all think we do. But what really goes on in their minds? What secrets do they keep from us? What are they capable of? That's what this script explores.
What popped out at me was just how cheap this could be made for. You could go the independent route and make it for nothing. Or you could nab a couple of big stars and make it a studio movie. Anyway, I realize this is a bit unorthodox, but if you're interested, please e-mail me at Carsonreeves1@gmail.com. I'll speak with the writer afterwards and let her decide who she wants to send the script off to.
So a few months ago I held a free contest over on the Done Deal Message Boards. It was a very simple competition. The first 100 people to contact me got in. Over the next three months I read all 100 scripts. In the end, there were three that really impressed me. I can't speak about the top two because they're currently being looked at by two of the top agencies in town, but as for this last one, all I can say is I really really liked this script and was shocked that the writer wasn't already represented.
Without going into too much detail, the script is sort of an understated cross between Basic Instinct and Gothika (although Gothika hinted at the supernatural. This is *not* supernatural. It's based completely in reality). It also has shades of The Stepfather and The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. The thing that scares me the most is: How well do you know the person closest to you? We all think we do. But what really goes on in their minds? What secrets do they keep from us? What are they capable of? That's what this script explores.
What popped out at me was just how cheap this could be made for. You could go the independent route and make it for nothing. Or you could nab a couple of big stars and make it a studio movie. Anyway, I realize this is a bit unorthodox, but if you're interested, please e-mail me at Carsonreeves1@gmail.com. I'll speak with the writer afterwards and let her decide who she wants to send the script off to.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Tourist
Genre: Thriller
Premise: An American tourist is roped in by a mysterious woman who uses him as bait to find her lost lover.
About: The Tourist is the project Tom Cruise was attached to but ditched in favor of Wichita. Once he left, the younger, beefier, and Australianer Sam Worthington took his place. Worthington, best known for landing the lead role in James Cameron's smurf adaptation, Avatar, was also up for the part of James Bond, ultimately won by Daniel Craig. Julian Fellows is the Oscar winning screenwriter of Gosford Park. The Tourist will be produced by Roger Birnbaum, Gary Barber and Jonathan Glickman. It is a remake of a recent French film.
Writer: Julian Fellows (revisions by William Wheeler – based on “Anthony Zimmer” by Jerome Salle. Current revisions by Jeffrey Nachmanoff. Ernest Hemingway, Bill Cosby, and a bucket of elves are also reported to have worked on the script).
Details: 103 pages (June 9, 2008 draft)
Sam Worthington is a bit of a curiosity at this point. Because of the longstanding tradition of Australian hunks who have been anointed super-stardom here in the states, whenever a new one comes along we blindly trust the Varieties and the Entertainment Weeklys when they tell us they're the real deal. “This is the next Mel Gibson," they say. And we shrug our shoulders and go, "All right. You're the boss." But what's really going on here? When Sam Worthington signs on for The Tourist and Clash of the Titans and Last Night (a Scriptshadow Top 25 script), is it because he's actually a good actor? Or is there something else at play?
Oh, there's something else all right. It's called 70 million dollars worth of advertising plastering his face all over the world this winter. These movies aren't signing this guy on ability. They're signing him on bank-ability. By the time their movie comes out, the average schmoe will know Sam Worthington's name and face better than they know their own daughter. Fuck you little Julie, Sam Worthington's movie is opening this weekend! "Who's Sam Worthington daddy?" "Hell if I know. He was in the Smurf's remake!"
You may remember this with other Australian demi-gods like Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, and the late Heath Ledger. Which begs the question: What the hell is wrong with us Americans?? Are we not sexy enough? Do we not possess the requisite beefiness factor to be considered stud material? Hell, I love Australia. But do we really need to take a 24 hour plane ride to find our next movie star? Thank god for Will Smith, right?
Anyway, whether we approve or not, Worthington is the latest implant and boy is he taking advantage of it. While not everyone watched Terminator Salvation (was that even a Terminator movie?), you can't discount Cameron's adaptation of the smurf franchise this winter. At the very least it'll be watchable. But will Worthington be Michael Biene? (that's Kyle Reese from the first Terminator film if you're not paying attention) or will he be the next Sigorney Weaver?
The Tourist is about a man so secret, not even his best friends know what he looks like (he's had extensive plastic surgery to keep his identity a mystery). And about a woman so gorgeous, men fall in love with her at just a glance. The man’s name is Alexander, and he seems to have stolen 744 million dollars from the U.S. government in unpaid taxes (Didn’t George Lucas teach us never to base our stories on taxes?). For that reason, since the story is set in Europe, the British government, in cooperation with the American government, very much wants to put an end to elusive Alexander's freedom. But how do you catch a man when you don’t know what he looks like?? The key is the beautiful woman I just mentioned, Charlize Theron's Cara. The two used to be an item but were split up when she was captured and he escaped. Out of jail for the first time, it’s assumed that Alexander will try to contact Cara. So a team led by John Ackerman (shamelessly described as a British “Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive”) is tailing her, waiting for her to lead him to the pot of gold.
Speaking of pot of gold. Hubba hubba.
So where the hell is Sam Worthington in all this? Did he catch the last Quantas flight back to Melbourne? No, actually Worthington plays Frank Taylor, an American tourist who somehow gets wrapped up in all this nonsense. You see the clever Alexander sends a message to Cara telling her to get on a train and find someone of similar build to travel with. This way, the police will assume that the man is Alexander, blow his brains out, and Cara can slip off to rendezvous with the real Alexander, living happily ever after.
So innocent Frank cannot believe his good fortune when Cara approaches him on the train. It never occurs to him that the hottest woman in the world hitting on him might be the least bit suspicious. Nope, it doesn't matter if you're the Elephant Man. If a beautiful woman approaches you, the male ego simply assumes it's a result of his indescribable inner awesomeness. The scenes where Cara playfully flirts with Frank are some of the best in the script. From the Shanghai Express to Venice, it’s like a big budget Before Sunrise as the two connect on several levels, or so Frank assumes. But no sooner does this dream ride begin than it all comes crashing down, like a game of jenga after a dozen bud lights. Cara disappears out of Frank's life and it’s then that we learn that the police aren’t the only ones looking for Alexander. Mr. Nip/Tuck himself apparently double-crossed a very eccentric Russian mobster named Demidov – who wants Alexander Demi-dead. Or all the way dead.
After a chase so extensive it makes Jason Bourne look like he's stuck in a wheelchair, Frank escapes the Vodka Express, barely intact. Sir Tommy Lee Jones then fills him in on the details. Who Cara *really* is and where they think she’ll find the elusive Alexander. I was a little confused as to why the police would tell a random guy all their deepest secrets about an international top secret case that's been going on for a decade but whatever. You go with it. Needless to say we eventually learn that not everything is as it seems. But is it ever?
The Tourist isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. But it certainly isn't breaking any new ground. I don't know if you figured out who Alexander was, but I sure did....by page 10! Granted I'm super-sleuther read-every-script-in-the-world, sizing up every usual suspect the second they hit the screen. But in a script that sort of telegraphs its ultra-snazzy twist in the first act, I wonder if people won't be leaving this movie ultra-disappointed.
It's not a total loss. The journey is fun. And Cara is definitely a winning role. But I see why Cruise left the film. For the majority of the movie, Frank is more passive than Ghandi. And even as he tries to turn the table in the end and become super-spy 009, you're sitting there thinking, "Aren't you a little late to the game my faux-American friend?" You can decide for yourself though. I'll certainly be interested in hearing your thoughts.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: I’d really really avoid comparing any of your characters to one of the all time great characters in cinema. Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive is cinematic royalty. As soon as Fellows described him as such, the movie lost a considerable amount of its originality. It just shows a lack of imagination on the writer’s end. You should always try to create unique characters that no one’s ever seen before, especially in your antagonists. Fellows is lucky he's won an Oscar. Because a first-timer would get killed for pulling something like this.
Premise: An American tourist is roped in by a mysterious woman who uses him as bait to find her lost lover.
About: The Tourist is the project Tom Cruise was attached to but ditched in favor of Wichita. Once he left, the younger, beefier, and Australianer Sam Worthington took his place. Worthington, best known for landing the lead role in James Cameron's smurf adaptation, Avatar, was also up for the part of James Bond, ultimately won by Daniel Craig. Julian Fellows is the Oscar winning screenwriter of Gosford Park. The Tourist will be produced by Roger Birnbaum, Gary Barber and Jonathan Glickman. It is a remake of a recent French film.
Writer: Julian Fellows (revisions by William Wheeler – based on “Anthony Zimmer” by Jerome Salle. Current revisions by Jeffrey Nachmanoff. Ernest Hemingway, Bill Cosby, and a bucket of elves are also reported to have worked on the script).
Details: 103 pages (June 9, 2008 draft)
Sam Worthington is a bit of a curiosity at this point. Because of the longstanding tradition of Australian hunks who have been anointed super-stardom here in the states, whenever a new one comes along we blindly trust the Varieties and the Entertainment Weeklys when they tell us they're the real deal. “This is the next Mel Gibson," they say. And we shrug our shoulders and go, "All right. You're the boss." But what's really going on here? When Sam Worthington signs on for The Tourist and Clash of the Titans and Last Night (a Scriptshadow Top 25 script), is it because he's actually a good actor? Or is there something else at play?
Oh, there's something else all right. It's called 70 million dollars worth of advertising plastering his face all over the world this winter. These movies aren't signing this guy on ability. They're signing him on bank-ability. By the time their movie comes out, the average schmoe will know Sam Worthington's name and face better than they know their own daughter. Fuck you little Julie, Sam Worthington's movie is opening this weekend! "Who's Sam Worthington daddy?" "Hell if I know. He was in the Smurf's remake!"
You may remember this with other Australian demi-gods like Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, and the late Heath Ledger. Which begs the question: What the hell is wrong with us Americans?? Are we not sexy enough? Do we not possess the requisite beefiness factor to be considered stud material? Hell, I love Australia. But do we really need to take a 24 hour plane ride to find our next movie star? Thank god for Will Smith, right?
Anyway, whether we approve or not, Worthington is the latest implant and boy is he taking advantage of it. While not everyone watched Terminator Salvation (was that even a Terminator movie?), you can't discount Cameron's adaptation of the smurf franchise this winter. At the very least it'll be watchable. But will Worthington be Michael Biene? (that's Kyle Reese from the first Terminator film if you're not paying attention) or will he be the next Sigorney Weaver?
The Tourist is about a man so secret, not even his best friends know what he looks like (he's had extensive plastic surgery to keep his identity a mystery). And about a woman so gorgeous, men fall in love with her at just a glance. The man’s name is Alexander, and he seems to have stolen 744 million dollars from the U.S. government in unpaid taxes (Didn’t George Lucas teach us never to base our stories on taxes?). For that reason, since the story is set in Europe, the British government, in cooperation with the American government, very much wants to put an end to elusive Alexander's freedom. But how do you catch a man when you don’t know what he looks like?? The key is the beautiful woman I just mentioned, Charlize Theron's Cara. The two used to be an item but were split up when she was captured and he escaped. Out of jail for the first time, it’s assumed that Alexander will try to contact Cara. So a team led by John Ackerman (shamelessly described as a British “Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive”) is tailing her, waiting for her to lead him to the pot of gold.
Speaking of pot of gold. Hubba hubba.So where the hell is Sam Worthington in all this? Did he catch the last Quantas flight back to Melbourne? No, actually Worthington plays Frank Taylor, an American tourist who somehow gets wrapped up in all this nonsense. You see the clever Alexander sends a message to Cara telling her to get on a train and find someone of similar build to travel with. This way, the police will assume that the man is Alexander, blow his brains out, and Cara can slip off to rendezvous with the real Alexander, living happily ever after.
So innocent Frank cannot believe his good fortune when Cara approaches him on the train. It never occurs to him that the hottest woman in the world hitting on him might be the least bit suspicious. Nope, it doesn't matter if you're the Elephant Man. If a beautiful woman approaches you, the male ego simply assumes it's a result of his indescribable inner awesomeness. The scenes where Cara playfully flirts with Frank are some of the best in the script. From the Shanghai Express to Venice, it’s like a big budget Before Sunrise as the two connect on several levels, or so Frank assumes. But no sooner does this dream ride begin than it all comes crashing down, like a game of jenga after a dozen bud lights. Cara disappears out of Frank's life and it’s then that we learn that the police aren’t the only ones looking for Alexander. Mr. Nip/Tuck himself apparently double-crossed a very eccentric Russian mobster named Demidov – who wants Alexander Demi-dead. Or all the way dead.
After a chase so extensive it makes Jason Bourne look like he's stuck in a wheelchair, Frank escapes the Vodka Express, barely intact. Sir Tommy Lee Jones then fills him in on the details. Who Cara *really* is and where they think she’ll find the elusive Alexander. I was a little confused as to why the police would tell a random guy all their deepest secrets about an international top secret case that's been going on for a decade but whatever. You go with it. Needless to say we eventually learn that not everything is as it seems. But is it ever?
The Tourist isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. But it certainly isn't breaking any new ground. I don't know if you figured out who Alexander was, but I sure did....by page 10! Granted I'm super-sleuther read-every-script-in-the-world, sizing up every usual suspect the second they hit the screen. But in a script that sort of telegraphs its ultra-snazzy twist in the first act, I wonder if people won't be leaving this movie ultra-disappointed.
It's not a total loss. The journey is fun. And Cara is definitely a winning role. But I see why Cruise left the film. For the majority of the movie, Frank is more passive than Ghandi. And even as he tries to turn the table in the end and become super-spy 009, you're sitting there thinking, "Aren't you a little late to the game my faux-American friend?" You can decide for yourself though. I'll certainly be interested in hearing your thoughts.
[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius
What I learned: I’d really really avoid comparing any of your characters to one of the all time great characters in cinema. Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive is cinematic royalty. As soon as Fellows described him as such, the movie lost a considerable amount of its originality. It just shows a lack of imagination on the writer’s end. You should always try to create unique characters that no one’s ever seen before, especially in your antagonists. Fellows is lucky he's won an Oscar. Because a first-timer would get killed for pulling something like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)