Meet the Four Quadrants

Thought I'd dig this column out of the vault and post it here for y'all, since the topic is still very timely. Many thanks to Creative Screenwriting, of course, for the rewrite permission. And now it's time to...

MEET THE FOUR QUADRANTS

AGENT’S HOT SHEET

by Jim Cirile


Just what is a four-quadrant movie, and why should writers care about them? Simple—because they are often the most successful films, and therefore they are also the most coveted scripts.

ADVISORY BOARD

Richard Arlook
The Gersh Agency

Marty Bowen
United Talent Agency

Nicole Clemens
International Creative Management

Emile Gladstone
Broder, Webb, Chervin & Silbermann

Melinda Manos
Manos Management

Julien Thuan
United Talent Agency

Let’s start this shindig by plugging my favorite movie of last year. Okay, I loved Finding Neverland, but as a Bond fan and comic book fan and Brad Bird fan, heck, my top honors go to The Incredibles (Gee, what a shock—another terrific Pixar movie.) The success of this $92 million animated feature dovetails quite nicely into this month’s column—The Incredibles is a near-perfect four-quadrant movie.

Just what does “four-quadrant” mean? It’s a movie that appeals to all four main demographic groups—young and old, male and female. Obviously, many flicks do not do this. Strangely, my five-year-old daughter does not share my love of Army of Darkness. Yet she and her mother and I, along with all her female teenage cousins, all came out giddy from The Incredibles. As of this writing, the film has grossed $260 million, and that’s just the domestic box office.

So it stands to reason that studios are on the lookout for the next The Incredibles and its ilk—the 4-quadrant spec is the current “it” girl. UTA feature lit agent Julien Thuan says, “If you have a property that could be marketed to the four major demographics, presumably it will be a more successful movie. It’s obviously a large part of what ‘event films’ aspire to.”

And while “four-quadrant” may be a hip buzzword, there’s really nothing new about it. The Gersh Agency’s Richard Arlook tells us, “I’ve been getting calls for years from people looking for great family movies that work for young and old and male and female. And they’ll reference successful movies. Two years ago, it was Shrek. Now it’s The Incredibles or Meet the Fockers.” BWCS’ Emile Gladstone observes, “The top ten grossing movies of all time attracted a very broad audience. Now If you read the Titanic script, you wouldn’t necessarily think it was a four-quadrant movie, but it did hit on all quadrants.”

That’s one of the, er, incredible things about The Incredibles—like Titanic, on the surface, it too doesn’t appear to be a four-quadrant movie. An animated film about superheroes? And not even established characters? Kid’s flick, end of story. But the script smartly spun the old formula on its butt. Instead of having the female lead get kidnapped, with the male protagonist having to rescue her in Act 3, it’s the male protagonist who gets kidnapped, forcing the wife and kids to come to the rescue. This stroke of brilliance allowed the Elastigirl character to really come into her own and made millions of kids want to emulate the superheroics of Violet and Dash. “One hundred percent,” agrees Gladstone. “And thematically, it’s more about how to make the most of your mundane life. There’s certainly a lot about mid-life crisis in that movie, a lot of scenes that adults would relate to.” Thuan adds a few more reasons why The Incredibles performed so well versus some other superhero films that did not: “At the root of it, you had this emotional core that had universal appeal. It has a very simple idea—a family of superheroes that have to come together to save the world. It’s great comedy, but for the most part it’s clean comedy, so it can appeal to the entire family. And it has great messages. It’s not about violence. It’s not about a lot of the other crutches of those sorts of movies.” Gladstone agrees, “If movies were only about cool action sequences, then Elektra would have done well. It’s a combination of cool action sequences with characters that you really care about.”

So let’s say you, intrepid writer, deliver to your representative one of these elusive and coveted 4-quadrant specs. What happens now? “Frankly, when you have that kind of material, it becomes an obvious sell,” says Thuan, “and as a result, an obvious buy. So it’s easy for the marketing people to get behind it, because they essentially have a lot of ways in which to put the film out there and precedence for how they can do it.” Gladstone notes that the wider the appeal of the script, the greater the sell behind it. “Only certain studios will do a horror movie, and only certain studios will do a character-driven action movie. You figure out ‘Who is your hard target?’ in terms of your sales strategy—‘This is a Universal picture.’ ‘This is a Sony and a Universal picture, but it’s not a Warner Bros. picture.’ But with a four-quadrant movie, it’s everyone’s picture. The larger spec sales and bidding wars come from movies that appeal to a broader audience.” In other words, if you nail the 4-Q, that’s where the big paydays are.

Thuan and Arlook both break out the big guns when marketing a four-quadrant spec. “You definitely alert buyers in a different way to what you have,” says Thuan. “You identify producers who have experience making these kinds of films so that you can help to validate it as that kind of a film. It’s not always obvious to the buyers.” And when a terrific four-quadrant spec lands in Arlook’s lap, “I’ll call all the biggest producers in the world of 4-quadrant movies and hype ‘em on it,” he says, “and tell them ‘I’ve got one of those scripts that everybody’s looking for, and it’s a great script.’ But if it’s not a great script, I’m not calling anybody.”

And therein lies the rub—another reason the four-quadrant script is so coveted is because it’s deceptively difficult to pull off. “I’d rather have a small, brilliantly written Million Dollar Baby,” says Arlook, “or that kind of movie that’s going to attract a filmmaker, than the biggest idea in the world that’s written like crap.” UTA’s Marty Bowen seconds that. “Trying to write to appeal to everyone seems to be contradictory to the creative process. Within reason, a writer should write and not worry about mass marketing. Let the story he or she believes in find its own audience,” he says.

Still, all of our panelists advise their clients to maximize their script’s marketability... to a point. Gladstone feels that writers should be true to their voice while still watching box office trends. “If they’re romantic comedy writers, I’m asking them to make scripts more comedic and make sure there are set-pieces that allow for a marketing campaign,” he says. “I’m trying to steer romantic comedy writers from writing When Harry Met Sally to writing the best variation of Along Came Polly--not that that is the model for the script itself, but if you look at the marketing campaign and its success, you have to emulate that.”

Manager Melinda Manos mentions a recent debate based on marketability. “There’s a logo of a gang in (my client’s) script--the middle finger. It’s seen a lot. That’s something that would have definitely made the movie an ‘R.’ We said, ‘This may hurt the sale.’ So I had a conversation with the writer, the director attached, with the agent—‘What can we use instead of that?’ We came up with the second finger, then two fingers like a rapper’s move, and then the pinky... it got really stupid after awhile. We were like, ‘You know what? We’re leaving it. If we have someone that likes it enough, (but) they don’t want to buy it because of that, then we’ll change it.’” And therein lies the danger of self-censorship based on marketing concerns. Says Thuan, “For writers to already censor themselves in the creative process before anyone even sees the script, it’s just brutal. We end up with nothing. The voice is so diluted by the time it gets to the screen that to already start diluting based on anticipation of marketing or hitting key demographics--if that’s part of the writing process, it lacks purity to such a degree that most of the time, it won’t work.”

Moral? “This above all, to thine own self be true.” Some decent writer wrote that. If you crank out a 4-Q script shooting for that big payday, it probably won’t work. As always, write what you’re passionate about. But if you do decide to write a 4-Q, remember, “For the most part, the successful four-quadrant movies appeal to both kids and adults,” says Gladstone, “and have adult protagonists as well as kid protagonists. The adult protagonist, that’s where you’re going to find your star. That’s how you’re going to get your movie made.” Don’t write something like The Goonies where the kids are the sole protagonists. “Not gonna sell,” concludes Gladstone.

The Slippery Rewrite Slope

I've seen it many times. You think you should be moving forward with each draft; but oftentimes, you work on the rewrite, send it in to CI, and based on the analysis, you're worse off than you were the first time. It can be a bit discouraging, for sure. We all want to get better coverage when we resubmit, of course. And that happens less than half the time.

It's important to remember several things:

1) It is seldom a steady upward arc of script progression. More often than not, the rewrite will come in at roughly the same box score zone, or sometimes even gets worse. The reasons for this are many. First is that while trying to solve certain problems, writers often inadvertently create new ones. Sure, your spot-fix solution may address note 97B and kick that one to the curb, but... the ripple effect creates three new plot-holes or character consistency problems.

Or perhaps your solution doesn't go far enough to fix the problem--like putting out a three-alarmer with a water balloon. Writers (myself included) ALWAYS try to do the least work possible and are notoriously reluctant to throw away scenes which are not working ,even if reader after reader tells them, "you gotta rethink this." So we patch things with spit and glue rather than doing the invasive surgery that may really be required.

Or it could be that... brace yourself... the writer simply doesn't have the chops yet to actually solve the problem at a level required to elevate the material. This is where education and old-fashioned practice come into play. It's also why we always tell people to watch similar movies and break them down scene by scene, so writers can really start to understand why those film's structures worked, and thus see how their own script's structure differs. Like everything else in life that's worth doing, screenwriting is a craft that must be practiced over and over, studied and really pored over before most of us can start to get it right. Sure there are those wunderkind guys who write their first script, and it's brilliant; they win the Nicholl Fellowship and they become Hollywood's new "it" guy.

There are about 6 of those dudes on the planet. The rest of us have to friggin' work at it. Today my daughter got her 3rd yellow stripe in Kenpo karate. We were told if she works very very hard she can expect to have a black belt in 7 years or so. Why should screenwriting be any different? It's all about the dedication you bring to it. Gotta be willing to fall down, get back up again, and most importantly, rewrite the hell out of your scripts over and over. If you do not have steely resolve, do NOT become a screenwriter.

2) A lot has to do with the individual analyst. For example, many CI clients elect the dual reader option, and I'm always interested to see the results. More often than not, since my team are all smart cookies with degrees in screenwriting and practical industry experience, the notes are very similar from reader to reader. But recently I got two coverage reports back on a script in which the two readers both said pretty much the same things--but one gave it a PASS and low-middling box scores, while the other gave it an enthusiastic CONSIDER with above average box scores. The big difference had less to do with the notes and advice but with the passion the individual readers felt for the script. Succinctly, one dug it; the other not as much, but saw the potential. Now that didn't affect the notes, because both ferreted out the same structural and character problems. And I personally then read that script, and I agreed with BOTH analysts. The guy who really liked it was right, and correctly qualified his comments by saying this is a strong, marketable script that needs work; and girl that didn't like it as much thought the same thing. They just scored it differently.

So bear in mind, a coverage report is just one person's opinion at the end of the day. A knowledgeable opinion for sure, but still, an opinion.

3) There is often a specific central problem in a script--the structural flaw which no amount of patching will overcome. The script is broken, and will stay broken, until that issue is repaired. A writer can do dozens of rewrites, tackling all the other problems in the script, and still get a PASS if that central problem is not addressed. This might be, say, a key implausibility in the story; if you don't buy the whole premise, well, that's a tough nut to crack. Or maybe it's a lack of a through-line or external goal for the protagonist... and on and on.

I recently experienced this exact issue with one of my own scripts. I wrote draft after draft, sent it to my team under a pseudonym as I always do, but I could never get better than a weak consider. This drove me NUTS. Until I finally realized the problem was that nobody cared enough about my main character. Sure, he was well-developed and had a character arc, but no one had an emotional connection to the guy and thus no one really cared to root him on... which meant they didn't care to keep reading. I had no idea what I was doing wrong until one of my readers gave me a real hair-puller of a note I did not want to address. When I finally dug in, I realized what he was really saying. And in fact, I had been avoid addressing this issue, dismissing the other readers who had commented on this, because I thought simply, "they're wrong." Dope!

So I took great pains to go back and make my guy likeable--tough on the outside like before, but very wounded on the inside. And the difference was night and day. I had finally licked that elusive central problem. And suddenly that same script--changed by only a short new scene added in the first act and a few minor dialogue tweaks--went from weak consider to strong consider, because everyone was pulling for the guy.

All of us get discouraged as writers. It comes with the territory. You slave over a draft and hope to God somebody likes it... and then disappointment sets in when you realize, "Crap, I have to do MORE work on this thing? Sigh."

Welcome to the writer's life!

--Jim Cirile

Popular Films Partners With CI

Hi folks,

I'm pleased to announce that Coverage, Ink has entered into a new agreement with production company Popular Films. Popular is run by Sean Sorenson and Tim Albaugh, two very, very smart guys (and working writer/producers both.) Tim was actually one of my teachers in the UCLA Professional Program in Screenwriting, and I can tell you for sure he knows his stuff.

Popular will be offering high-end script consultations by way of script mark-ups and phone meetings. We will be rolling this out on the Coverage, Ink web site within the next few weeks. Popular will also be keeping their eye out for good material...

Check out their web site HERE!

Thoughts from Behind the Curtain

The past few weeks I've been working with the Writers on the Storm Top Ten. I've had lengthy chats with each of them -- talented writers all -- and we've been going through the scripts with my feedback, and in some cases, with the feedback from the CI analysts who covered the scripts.

What I've discovered is pretty interesting. The first thing I noticed is that two of our winners have Masters Degrees in Screenwriting, while another two went through the UCLA Professional Program (our winner, Bob Rhyne, starts next week at the UCLA Professional Program.) And another one of our Top Ten has taken classes at UCLA Extension and Writers Boot Camp. That's six of the Top Ten who have had higher education in screenwriting. Mind you, we had no idea of this going in, and contest judge Hal Ackerman, co-head of the UCLA Screenwriting Dept., insisted that the scripts be anonymous -- we tore off the cover pages before we sent them to him. Interesting, eh?

A few of our top ten are represented; but only a few of them are actually satisfied with their representation (big shocker.)

But here's the most interesting thing. The very talented Keli Rowley, who wrote the animated comedy/adventure Danny Longlegs, told me she placed 3rd in this year's Scriptapalooza contest. That's two strong contest showings in a month -- a true testament to that fact that cream rises. But when I spoke to Keli, I'd discovered that Scriptapalooza had already sent her script out to their list. This baffled me. No slight against her or her script, but why would any contest do this?

We've spent the better part of a month developing the top ten scripts with our Writers on the Storm winners so that when the scripts go out, they can put best foot forward. Some of the writers embraced the process and really dug in; a few others were less interested in doing so; that's fine in either case. But here's the thing: we are putting our reputation on the line when we send out that list (later this week.) It is VERY important that these scripts be as good as they can be for both the writers' sakes and our own. In the case of every single script, we found issues that could and should be addressed. As a result, our top ten scripts are ALL better than they were a month ago. So the scripts we are sending to the town we are confident in.

It boggles my mind how a big contest like Scriptapalooza can simply throw their scripts out there to the town. Again, no slight to the writers. I'm sure their scripts are good enough as is to attract attention. But are they as good as they CAN be? As a writer, wouldn't you want to do every single thing you possibly can to make your script as good as it can be BEFORE it goes out?

Anyway, that's not what we're about. We are going to do everything we can to get these writers attention, and that includes helping them up their game and their craft and marketing savvy. Because damn it, that's what a contest should be, don't you think?

--Jim Cirile

Inside UTA's Locker Room

A couple years back, Creative Screenwriting ran my interview with young UTA agents Tobin Babst, Julien Thuan and Jason Burns. Superagent Marty Bowen had dubbed them "The Locker Room Guys," because when they were first promoted, all three had to share a small office, which Bowen joked was rather like a locker room.

We had to cut the lengthy article significantly to fit in in the magazine. So for the sake of posterity, and because it's a cool, in-depth interview, I'm posting it here on the blog in its entirety. It's a rare glimpse behind the scenes at one of the top agencies in town, and all three are pretty cool guys, too. Enjoy!

--Jim Cirile

INSIDE UTA'S LOCKER ROOM
Jim Cirile interviews UTA feature lit agents Tobin Babst, Julien Thuan and Jason Burns

Jim: Great to meet you guys. Can you each tell me a bit about your background?

Toby: I grew up in Maryland. From University of Maryland, I transferred to NYU for screenwriting, playwriting. During my time there I learned more about the craft part of it. I started coming out here and interning and learning a bit about the business part. I thought, what if I don’t want to bank a career on whether or not I’ll be able to write a screenplay, and what kind of job could my degree apply towards? I ended up being excited by the other side of things—the development world and the agency world. I did a few internships in New York, and then I came out here and interned at Peter Guber’s company for a summer. Ultimately I just decided that I was going to come out here and figure out how I was gonna get into that world. Joining an agency mailroom, or agency training program, seemed like the way to go. I started at UTA a few months later and have been here 5 ½ years. That’s a month in the mailroom, two years as an assistant to John Lesher, a year as an assistant to Marty (Bowen,) and a little under 2½ years as an agent.

JC: You still doing any writing?

Toby: No. I don’t think there’s time for both. I just felt like if I tried to do both, I’d probably end up succeeding at neither.

Julian: I grew up in Nashville, Tenn. I went to Duke University. Junior year I came out here with a friend to do an internship with Chuck Rogan’s company. Mainly because they didn’t pay, I took a couple of meetings to see if I could get an internship that paid. I met with a Duke alum named Brad Joel, who was an agent here at the time, and he put me through the system. I was offered an internship, which was great, and spent the next two months doing that. An internship here is very much the same as being in the mailroom. You have the same sort of duties and responsibilities. I loved it, so by the end of the summer I was offered a job. I went back to school and spent my senior year knowing what I was gonna do. Two weeks after graduation I was back here pushing a mail cart.

I was in the mailroom for a month. I worked for David Kramer. Then I worked for Jeremy Zimmer—

JC: Both you guys were in the mailroom for a month?

Julian: It’s the minimum amount that you can be in the mailroom for.

Jason: It was a smaller company at the time, and there was a need.

Toby: It’s all timing. Almost all the assistants have to start in the mailroom as a trainee. There’s a minimum 4 weeks required, but beyond that it’s just when something comes available. If an assistant is leaving or going to another desk, there’s gonna be a spot opening up.

JC: So the mailroom is the talent pool.

Toby: Yeah. If there’s a lot of turnover, then you get out of the mailroom pretty quickly. If not, or if there’s a specific department you want to be in, then it can end up taking 6-9 months.

Jason: There’s plenty of stories here about people who are successful agents who were in the mailroom for over a year. Just because it’s a long stint doesn’t necessarily mean—

Toby: We were pretty lucky with the timing. But we also kind of knew what we wanted to do. We all wanted to be in a lit group.

JC: You guys were all in the mailroom at the same time?

Julien: there was overlap, yeah.

JC: Julien, where did you go after the mailroom?

Julien: I worked for David Kramer for about a year and a half. Then I worked for Jeremy Zimmer for close to the same amount of time. Then I went to work in the New Media group for about a year. I was there for the new media boom and the bust. I was there for both, which was interesting. Very quickly, when I was in that group, I realized I wanted to come back to the lit group. After about a year I came back and have been doing that ever since.

Jason: I grew up here, in Malibu. I was always around the business but never really saw my place in it. Unlike Toby, I didn’t have writing aspirations or… So I went to UC San Diego as an Econ major, graduated and started working for Smith Barney as a stockbroker. I did that for about 11 months and was miserable. I liked the sales aspect and the pacing of it, but there’s no creative outlet in the job whatsoever. You couldn’t even really form an opinion about what you’re selling. You can sell something if you can see what’s great about it. But if you can’t form an opinion, it’s really tough to be passionate about it.

JC: Same thing about being an agent.

Jason: Yeah. So I knew people who had done what Julien had done, straight from college started working in the business, and started reading books about it. I interviewed at William Morris, ICM and UTA, and it clicked here. It felt smaller, hungrier, and I felt I connected with the people. I ended up moving from San Diego and started in the mailroom. I worked for Jeremy Zimmer and Dan Aloni as a second assistant for about 3 months, and then worked for Jeremy Zimmer for about 2 years, and then Blair Belcher after that for a little less than a year.

JC: Exact titles:

(all) Just agent.

Jason: There’s some people who get promoted to departmental assistant. Your main objective is to compile lists and help the department run smoothly. You’re eventually given duties of covering a studio. That’s when you really feel like you’re an agent who’s contributing to the group and selling the whole agency’s clients.

JC: That’s a great point. How does the covering of the individual studios work?

Jason: You’re assigned a specific studio or multiple studios. You need to be the in-house UTA expert (on) that studio. So let’s say it’s Universal and New Line. Along with the other group of agents, there’s usually about 3 or 4 including talent agents as well, who together cover the studio. They need to know everything going on at that studio. What’s the new script that’s come in? What’s the new open writing assignment? What project’s looking for a director? At UTA, you’re given the freedom but also the incentive to really cover the studio. Just because you’re in a lit group doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be reading a script and thinking, “This is a great Harrison Ford vehicle.” You’re supposed to think outside your group.

JC: I assume this also entails reading every single thing those studios buy.

Jason: Yes, reading everything they buy, everything they want to rewrite, even. Reading everything that needs a director, casting, all of it.

Julien: You also spend a lot of time developing relationships with all the producers at the studio, so there’s a real flow of information, hopefully commerce as well.

Jason: If I had a question about Sony, I would call Julian before I would call the executive on the project, because he’s gonna know the history and the pitfalls of that particular project. By calling Julien, I get the whole history—who’s gone in, what mistakes have been made in the past, what’s the executive thinking, what’s their expectation? That way, when you call, you already have a perspective of what’s going on.

Julien: Plus, when you don’t talk to those people every single day like a covering agent does, it’s hard to maintain those relationships.

Toby: You’re responsible for representing all the agency’s clients when there’s a job opportunity, but also when there’s not. A movie opens and does really well. So you’re expected to be talking with the executives, and of course you’re bringing up the good things that are happening with the company’s clients. Sometimes it’s specific to a job, sometimes it’s information-based, and other times it’s just general relationship-building.

Julien: As a newly-promoted agent, it’s the best way for you to develop relationships. It’s great because you don’t represent a ton of clients, you represent the entire agency.

JC: And you become important even if you’re not. Where does the Locker Room come from?

Toby: All 3 of us were promoted at the same time. When you’re first promoted you don’t have an assistant; you don’t even have an office. You just have a cubicle. As the company was expanding and we were getting a little more established, they started letting us share assistants and they wanted to give us office space. But the only office that was available was one large office for the three of us to share. After walking in a few times and seeing scripts everywhere, the trades everywhere...

JC: The three of you all talking on the phone at the same time...

Toby: Yeah, three people talking over each other, throwing things at each other, one day I think it just dawned on (Marty) that our office should be called the Locker Room.

JC: Obviously, at this point, you guys have separate offices and assistants. Do you miss the old days?

Toby: Which just happened about a month ago.

JC: Really? And all of you at the same time?

Jason: Yeah. There’s definitely camaraderie that was built working together so closely. You miss that. But when Toby and Julien call it’s like the first returned phone calls.

Toby: Or so he says now.

JC: You guys are all on the same floor…

Julien: Exactly.

Jason: Between the three of us, we pretty much cover the whole town. We all have different territories. We have a good sense of what’s going on.

JC: In terms of clients, do you share clients or have your own lists? How does that work?

Toby: The whole agency’s corporate philosophy is based on teamwork. You’re almost never representing somebody alone, it’s almost always a team of at least 2 agents. Because we work so closely together, physically, we ended up sharing a lot of new business.

JC: Are guys 100% lit, 50% lit 50% talent? How is it broken up.

Julien: A little bit of everything. It’s mostly lit. (We’re mostly dealing with) writers and directors. But in your day-to-day, you end up being on teams with actors. There’s an aspect of it that is talent-oriented. There’s a lit component of that, also, ‘cause a lot of actors now have companies which we service as well. Sometimes you’re reading scripts that is only (being read as a possible) open writing (assignment,) but you have a great idea for someone within the company that would be great to build the movie around.

JC: Obviously, everyone has different tastes. Do you have any specific genre specialties?

Toby: Defining taste by genre is a hard thing to do. We all represent a little bit of everything. The one thing that’s consistent is that we like original voices. We like people who have something new and interesting to say. A lot of times we share new people that we’re thinking of representing with each other to see what we think. The great thing about having a relationship with these guys is you have a sounding board.


Jason: It always comes back to original voices. It’s something the agency was built on. It’s championing people, maybe taking a bigger risk. When we look at material, we’re more excited by someone with a really original voice and point of view and great writing than we are by the next big spec idea. We’re building careers. It’s great to sell spec scripts, but for us what’s really important is longevity.

JC: (UTA client) Charlie Kaufman, case in point.

Jason: Yeah. Some of those scripts were just sitting around (at other agencies.)

Toby: You can’t really predict what the spec market is gonna do. You can get a sense of what you think people will get excited about or not, but getting them to actually buy a spec can be a tricky thing. If you’re excited about original voices and writing, it doesn’t quite matter as much whether the studios buy (the spec) or not. You hope that they do, but what you really want is a lot of people reading a writer who you think is talented—somebody that you can then get them to start working with.

JC: What do you like about UTA?

Julien: As a lit agent, I like that we’re very open to things that are out-of-the-box and different. There’s not that pressure to go in and sell the big spec. It’s much more “who are the writers that we’re excited about, and how do we embrace them as a group?” even though a new, young writer might have a spec script that goes out, even if it doesn’t sell, chances are the entire group has read that writer. We’ve all essentially signed off and believe in the person. That person still has a career, and there’s still business there. That’s exciting to me. It’s a different kind of business than a lot of other agencies have. Also I like that a lot of the business that we have has been here since the beginning. We grow a lot of talent. There’s nothing more exciting than seeing someone get their first big break.

Jason: I feel like the place takes more time in investing in its people and personnel. When you get promoted (they don’t just say) “Here’s your office. Good luck.” There’s not that feeling of sink or swim. They really want to see you succeed. There’s not that “You gotta go sign 30 people and good luck” (attitude.) Underlying it all is “Take your time with it. Sign the people you believe in.” It’s not a way of representing people where you sign 10 and if 2 take off, great—you can get rid of the other 8.

JC: Like some other agencies. What do each of you hope to bring to the table? How do you want the town to perceive you?

Toby: I feel like I’m just getting started. But what I’d like my reputation to be is (as) someone who is extremely hard-working, honest and straightforward, intelligent and passionate about the people that he represents. And is someone who will stand up for what he believes in, in terms of his artists.

Julien: I think integrity is one of the most important things in this job, which is ironic given the perception of agents, I think. I can say that’s the reason I do this, because I’ve seen people do it with integrity. You know they’re always working in the best interest of the client. There’s no greater compliment for someone who does what we do.

Jason: I would say…

Toby: Go for the zinger, Burns.

(Everyone laughs.)

Jason: Respect comes from being honest and direct, being passionate about the people you represent.

JC: What would your advice be to the CS reader who hopes to one day be represented by UTA?

Jason: People make the mistake of calling a production company or an agency, and it’s all about getting that (specific) person on the phone. If you get somebody (and it’s not) the producer you want to send the script to, but it’s their assistant, and they’re willing to take a look at your material—good reads, good notes can come from anyone. The people we listen to are executives or producers…

Julien: Managers…

Jason: Right, people around town, or even assistants here. Every once in a while an assistant will come up and go, “I love this script. Would you take a look at it”? And you listen to them. Any read is a good read. Just because you’re trying to get to that one person—you have to realize they probably don’t have the time to read unsolicited material, but there are people out there (who will read it.) You have to be your own agent first, and ingratiate yourself to the people you can get on the phone.

Julien: Assistants are a great way to go. We all have clients now whom we found as assistants that we sort of brought up with us.

JC: Were you guys taking home boatloads of scripts every weekend?

Toby: All the time, yeah. We still do. It doesn’t take that long, I think, to develop an awareness for how to get your script into somebody’s hands. I you have a Creative Directory and you get Creative Screenwriting, you can find out who reads and who doesn’t.

JC: You also have to be able to write a coherent query letter.

Toby: That’s true. But the most important thing is the script. Obviously there are certain things that are inherently commercial and certain things that are not, but at the end of the day, we respond to what’s personal and what’s real. The emphasis should be on the writing. Until you have that, don’t worry about the rest, because it doesn’t matter.

Jason: Don’t force your writing around. If you’re like, “I have the ultimate heist movie; I’m gonna set it on Mars.” Starting there is probably not the best place to start. Start from something you are really passionate about and think you can write well.

Toby: If you write a good script, someone will find it. Somebody will recognize it and give it to an agent or a manager. It will find it’s way into somebody’s hands, because everybody’s looking for a good script. But for your readership, I would say read a lot of scripts. Watch a lot of movies. Think about how they were written. And beyond that, most importantly, keep writing. Write a lot. And remember you’re writing for Hollywood, which is a business. And remember that there is an audience out there, and that determines whether Hollywood wants to invest in your screenplay. But at the same time, you have to write for yourself, because that’s the only way your voice will show through.

JC: Anything else you guys want to add?

Toby: Despite the “Locker Room” nickname, it wasn’t given to us for the smell.

The new website's here! The new website's here!

Well after a scary 2 days with our site down (thanks to the geniuses at names4ever.com,) we now finally have launched our new website! Check it out and let us know what you think. We'll be adding lots more content as the weeks go on, too. Whew!

Click here to visit the new Coverage, Ink!

Excelsior!

--Jim C.

Coverage, Ink website is down...

Yep, we know, it's been down since Sunday. I flipped the switch to make our new website go live, you know, the one we've been working on for months, which is finally ready to launch... and of course, nothing worked! But fear not, folks (actually I'm the one fearing right now to be honest) we'll have the site up as soon as we're able to point the DNS to the new server, whatever the heck that means. In the meantime, here's a look at the WOTS winners announcement we're running in the next issue of Creative Screenwriting magazine. Enjoy!

--Jim C.

The BWCS/ICM Merger

The big news of late is of course the merger of powerhouse agency ICM with the medium-sized Broder, Webb, Chervin and Silbermann. What does this mean for us writers? Well, we will find out. I certainly will be talking to my panelists from both agencies very soon to get their take on what happened and will report it in the next issue of Creative Screenwriting.

Known for their top-notch clients, boutique style and shrewd dealmaking, BWCS seems to me to be a very good fit with ICM, an excellent old-school agency who could benefit from BWCS' nimbleness and reputation. But of course with any merger comes layoffs, and that potentially takes opportunity from writers by taking a major player of the field.

Of course, some of the folks laid off will likely land elsewhere or maybe start management companies, as tends to happen.

Well, maybe with the addition of BWCS, ICM will be able to afford a new sign. This one is looking a bit de clase. Joking! I snapped this picture at ICM last year -- it's behind the building in the parking lot ;)

WOTS WINNERS

Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that we present the winners of the Writers on the Storm Screenwriting Competition. Co-Chair of the UCLA Screenwriting Program Hal Ackerman called our top ten, "a decalogue of fine, varied, extremely imaginative and well-written screenplays. Persuasive arguments could be made for any of them being winners, and its easy to see why they went to the finals of the competition."

But in the end, there could be only one winner and two runners-up. They were chosen for their crisp dialogue, well-developed characters, excellent pacing and inventive storytelling. But above all, each one of them is a Movie with a capital "M"--all three jump off the page and into your mind's eye as you read them. We suspect you’ll be hearing about all our finalists in the months and years to come.

Once again, thanks to every single person who participated. We hope that all of you took away something positive from the experience. We promise you'll be hearing more from Writers on the Storm very soon.

Jim Cirile
Founder, Coverage Ink
Writers on the Storm Screenwriting Competition

GRAND PRIZE WINNER
RATIONAL PANIC by Robert Rhyne

FIRST RUNNER-UP
TRIO by John Unger Zussman & Patricia Zussman

SECOND RUNNER-UP
THE DOLLMAKER by Ned James Beedie

THE OTHER WOTS FINALISTS, in alphabetical order:

DANNY LONGLEGS by Keli Rowley

FURY by Dane Edward McCauley

HEAVENS TO BETSY by Brad Hennig

INK by Eric Andersen & Scott Smith

MASQUE by Kellen Hertz

THE NEWLY DEAD GAME by David Warfield

TYLER HUDSON'S CHRISTMAS EVE ADVENTURE by Carol Hoffman

COUNTDOWN TO THE WINNERS

Noon Monday... even now the leaders are jockeying for position...

Oh, the suspense!

Who's going to be $2,500 richer???

Stay tuned!

Producers... Agents... Managers...

I've gotten a few calls from industry folks who are tracking the Writers on the Storm contest, which is very nice to know! We have some awesome scripts coming down the pike for you folks -- you will not be disappointed. We're less than 1 week away now from announcing our winners.

If you're in the biz and would like to be added onto the list to see the winners, shoot me a mail at coverageink@aol.com.

We are sending all the companies on our list the winning script, along with the loglines of our top ten and a select few honorable mentions, plus a few comments on each. You may request to read any and/or all of them that strikes your fancy. We'll also keep you on the list for Writers on the Storm II.

WINNERS SOON!

--Jim Cirile

new website... almost ready!

We're about a week away from launching the new Coverage, Ink website! This all-new site features new services, articles and information, and some big news... but best of all... no price increases. Yep, you can get your script expertly analyzed for $129... less than it costs to gas up your Hummer.

The URL will be the same: www.coverageink.com. We're also kicking off the launch with a SALE which will only apply to folks on our newsletter mailing list, so if you're not on the list, send us an e-mail at coverageink@aol.com and we'll put you on the list. FYI, we will never spam you--you will only receive our monthly newsletters, chock full of (we hope) tips and inspiration.

Oh, and Writers on the Storm WINNERS... coming soon!

--Jim Cirile

The State of the Spec Market

I'm in the middle of writing my column for Creative Screenwriting, and boy, this is a weird one. It's my annual fall spec season column, and I am getting some wildly varying reports about the health of the spec marketplace.

Some of my panelists are reporting nothing but doom and gloom--nobody's buying jack. So then I point out the various spec sales listed in the trades, and say, how about these? Well, it turns out most of these are packages or scripts written by well-known writers with track records. Oh. Okay, so how are things for the emerging writer? Depends who you ask. Some of my panelists have had a great year and are excited for the fall. Some... less so.

I don't want to give away too much at this time (my editor would kill me if I did!) but this should be a do-not-miss column with a few surprises and hopefully a nice little sidebar on finding your screenwriting "voice."

Oh, and anybody who wants to know how the contest top ten are faring... heh heh heh. You'll get nothing out of me yet ;)

--Jim Cirile

WOTS TOP TEN

What a fantastic group of scripts we have here. And what a terrific assortment! We've got thrillers, horror, drama, comedy, animation, family, suspense--let it never be said we discriminate against any one particular genre.

The next three weeks, I will be reading these scripts along with UCLA Screenwriting Department Co-Head Hal Ackerman and a few other select industry folks. I am greatly looking forward to it. We will announce our WINNERS Monday, July 31st at noon.

Here are the awesome Writers on the Storm finalists in alphabetical order:

1) DANNY LONGLEGS --- Keli Rowley
animated/family/comedy

2) FURY -- Dane Edward McCauley
dramedy/thriller

3) HEAVENS TO BETSY -- Brad Hennig
comedy

4) INK -- Eric Andersen & Scott Smith
dramedy/suspense

5) MASQUE -- Kellen Hertz
drama/period drama/romance

6) RATIONAL PANIC -- Robert Rhyne
thriller

7) THE DOLLMAKER -- Ned James Beedie
thriller/suspense

8) THE NEWLY DEAD GAME -- David Warfield
teen/horror/comedy

9) TRIO -- John Unger Zussman & Patricia Zussman
drama/period drama/romance

10) TYLER HUDSON'S CHRISTMAS EVE ADVENTURE -- Carol Hoffman
family/comedy/adventure

Thanks to everyone who entered for helping to make our contest a smash hit!

To Refer or Not to Refer?

Informal poll here, guys, as we await the WOTS top ten.

Some of CI's competitors, for example Script Shark, ostensibly refer scripts that do well to industry contacts. CI's policy has always been that we make no representations about helping you market your script (Writers on the Storm contest excluded, of course.) We simply give you a thorough analysis--usually much more in-depth than our competitors--and charge you less, but the marketing is up to you. I've always hated the carrot and stick approach personally. I think it's a bit disingenuous to hold that prize out for people and then hand out disappointment to the vast majority of clients.

However, we HAVE actually helped a few clients from time to time. We just don't make a big deal about it. In fact, we've gotten a small handful of folks agents and managers.

So the question is: do you guys think CI should change our policy or keep it as is? Would like like to know (stated publicly on our website) that if your script gets a strong consider AND we consider it marketable, that we will all read it, discuss our feedback with the writer and then, with writer's permission, give it to some industry folks--bearing in mind that's less than 1% of submissions? Or do we just continue to offer better service and cheaper prices and not dangle some imaginary carrot? We're rolling out our new website within the next 2 weeks, so now would be a great time to incorporate any changes... IF we are going to make any. The floor is open!

--Jim Cirile

WOTS SEMIFINALISTS

Ladies and gentlemen, Writers on the Storm and Coverage, Ink proudly announces our semifinalists.

There are some AMAZING scripts in this group. Every single person on this list should be congratulated for really bringing the goods.

As for the 160 folks we eliminated--we feel your pain. We're all writers, too. We know what it's like.

I can tell you that the scripts below all had good writing AND a great concept. Many of our contest entries had one or the other but often not both. Of course, writing is a skill which can be learned just like any other craft. Some may be more adept at it than others, but at the end of the day, if you keep at it long enough and study with the right people, you will get better.

But concept is, er, another story. There were some great writers we had to eliminate in this round because while they could turn a phrase, the story just wasn't as unique or fascinating or cool as it could have been. Others had a really neat idea, but the script execution just was not quite there--yet. (Of course, if anyone wants serious feedback on their script, contact us at coverageink@aol.com, and don't forget to request $10 off as a WOTS entrant.)

Our TOP TEN will be announced at 12 noon on July 9th.

And so without further ado...

WRITERS ON THE STORM JUNE 2006 SEMIFINALISTS

Ariadne's Thread by Stephen Callen
Bloody Mary by Erica Land
Booker T. by J. Hol
Boys In Red by Jeffrey Davis
Danny Longlegs by Keli Rowley
Dimmesdale by Doug Molitor
Divorce In The White House by Dane Edward McCauley
Empire of the Wolf by Michael Kogge
Felix The Flyer by Christopher Canole
Fire and Rain by Phil Smy
Fishtown by Aaron Schnore
From the Old World by Adam Mosher
Fury by Dane Edward McCauley
Good Ole Boy Band by Jason Ancona
Good Television by Matt Dallman
Healing Marie by James Ossi
Heavens to Betsy by Brad Hennig
Ink by Eric Anderson & Scott Smith
Iron Men by John Metzner
Jerusalem Idol by Lewis Papier
Jonathan's Missing by Leslie & Michael Green
Kakakarma by Carlota Bennett
Lost Souls by Bryan Carrigan
Magick by Jeff Spry
Masque by Kellen Hertz
Mister Perfect by Carri Karuhn
Rational Panic by Robert Rhyne
Red & Dead by Patrick Udomsak
Richard by Kathryne Sheard
Rochester by Terry Frazier
Scent by Ronald DiPrimio
Sherlock & Jack by Jeff Wolverton
Shroud of Darkness by Max Adams
Sole Pursuit by Jason Siner
Stars and Bars by Troy DeRego
The Art of the Dodge by Donna Miller
The Big Four Oh by Bernie Felix, Jr.
The Brick Layer by Laqueta Lewis
The Contest by Melanie Winstead
The Curse of Nostradamus by Robert Williams
The Dollmaker by Ned James Beedie
The Fraternity by Jeff Wiegand
The Joshua Device by John Connell
The Magick of Time by Patricia Joyce
The Man Behind The Man by Michael Brand
The Newly Dead Game by David Warfield
The Rut by Kevin Caruso
Time Surfer by Sandi Steinberg
Tray People by Fred Pakiewicz
Trio by John Unger Zussman & Patricia Zussman
Tyler Hudson's Christmas Eve Adventure by Carol Hoffman
Vincent's Shadow by Don Perez
Viral by Mark Kratter

SEMIFINALISTS - to be announced 6/24

Hi folks, since we had a lot more quarterfinalists than we anticipated, and since we want to make sure every one of them gets read again, and because we need to make sure we have the absolute best, top 50, we are bumping the announcement of the Writers on the Storm semifinalists to 12 noon SATURDAY 6/24. We apologize for the extra couple of days. Now we've got to get back to reading those scripts!

--Portia Jefferson

Rock N' Roll Nightmare on DVD!

Way back when, in the halcyon days of the late '80s when Republican presidents were sane and big hair still rawked, I had the pleasure of working on a little film called The Edge of Hell (later renamed Rock N' Roll Nightmare for VHS release.) Conceived by my brother-in-law John Fasano (who went on to an excellent screenwriting/directing career) as a ultra-chee-Z camp rockin' horror flick, we assembled a team of our friends -- artists and sculptors all -- in John and my sister's basement to sculpt all manner of wacky monster puppets on a budget of $3. Literally. Oh yeah, and we also all starred in the film as heavy metal icon Jon Thor's band. That there was some fine actin', let me tell you! The finished film came out laughably, wonderfully bad, and has garnered a sizable cult following over the years.

Well, I am happy to say that Rock N' Roll Nightmare is finally coming to DVD June 27th in a glorious, feature-packed special edition brimming with outtakes, a Thor documentary and and hilarious commentary from Thor and Fasano. If you live anywhere near Burbank, stop by horror bookstore and collectibles shop DARK DELICACIES on July 5th at 7 PM. I'll be there along with Fasano and my sister Cin and others involved with the movie signing DVDs. Dark Delicacies is located at 4213 W. Burbank Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91505.
Check out the review at DVD Maniacs. Then stop in and ridicule me for my outrageously bad Aussie accent in the film. Well, at least I get to play drums, get laid AND eaten by a zombie. Which I consider to be a great way to spend the day. Friggin' A, mate!

Pre-order the DVD from Amazon HERE.

(Good Lord, me with blond hair!)

--JIM CIRILE

THE PRESSURE MOUNTS...

Picking the WOTS semifinalists... this is the really hard part, for several reasons. First, there are a lot of really good scripts in the quarterfinal round. Whittling 200 scripts down to 50 is going to be very hard.

But definitely not as hard as it will be for the 150 of you who get eliminated in round 2.

Yep, that's a killer. May even be harder than getting knocked out in round one, because you've maybe gotten your hopes up a little bit. And 3/4 of you are going to have to be jettisoned. Ouch. Man, I feel for every one of you guys that happens to.

The folks who make the semis and get eliminated before the top ten, I feel less sorry for. They can still use that semifinalist status to plug their careers and feel confident they're good writers whose scripts need more tweaking than a big rewrite.

We're going to be using a points system in the QFs to hopefully help with the elimination process. This is the exact same scoring system we've been using to judge the CS Open Live Writing Tournament for 5 years, and it works well.

We'll have those semifinalists next week!

--JIM CIRILE

QUARTERFINALISTS FYI

Hey guys,

One of our quarterfinalists asked a good question -- are the QF scripts going to be read again, or are they simply going to be advanced based on the scores from the first round? The answer is yes, we are going to reread all the quarterfinalist scripts with fresh readers. They will not be privy to to opinions/feedback from the first reader. As for the 50 semifinalists, same thing -- they will all be read again by a fresh set of eyes.

The top ten will be read by me personally along with UCLA Co-Head of the Screenwriting Dept. Hal Ackerman, our top 3 CI analysts and select industry friends. I've deliberately kept myself out of the loop as far as the feedback goes and have no idea of what the analysts have thought of each script so far (with the exception of the folks who entered through Coverage, Ink and made the quarterfinals -- although I have not personally read any of those either.)

One other comment: One fellow wrote me to say that he thought we were treating the Coverage Ink clients with kid gloves, since they only have to get a consider with reservations for script to make it to the quarterfinals. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. As any CI client will tell you, our analyses are thorough and tough. When you sit with a script for 8 hours dissecting it, you find a lot more issues than if you simply read it and write up a quick paragraph of mini-analysis. It's actually harder, not easier, to make the quarterfinals through CI than if you had submitted directly to the contest. The trade-off there is that CI clients get the ammunition to improve their scripts and are then encouraged to do so and then resubmit directly to the contest. In short, they got a second chance, and several CI clients took advantage of that. So in the end, I think it all balances out in terms of fairness.

regards to all,

Jim Cirile

NOW WHAT?

So what's next? What are you guys all going to do with those scripts? Have any marketing plans? Going to take the summer off? Going to take some classes?

Me, after taking a 9-month sabbatical to recharge my batteries and earn a certificate in the UCLA Professional Program in Screenwriting, I plan on jumping back into the game again. I've got two new specs nearing completion. And when I say nearing completion, I mean they still need quite a bit more development (which is a kind way of saying they still kind of suck eggs.) My long-suffering agent is probably going to have a cardiac when and if he sees new material from me. (Don't laugh. It's happened before. Agent Bobby Littman, may he rest in peace, left the planet shortly after sending out one of my specs many years ago. Coincidence? Hmm.)

How about you guys? What are you going to do with those scripts you submitted to WOTS? Have you entered them in other contests? Does anybody have anything interesting going on career-wise? Let us know!

--Jim Cirile

MINI-ANALYSIS

Hi folks -- Just a quick note to let you know we should be able to get all the mini-analyses sent out by June 9th.

Best wishes to everyone who participated.

--Jim C.

2006 WOTS QUARTERFINALISTS

Ladies and gentlemen, it is with great pleasure that we present to you this list. Writers on the Storm received 907 submissions--outstanding for a first-year-contest--and even more remarkable was how many GOOD scripts there were. We had a LOT of considers and recommends--over 20% of our submissions! Maybe that's because a lot of you guys are Coverage, Ink clients and have been working to develop and hone your scripts. Whatever the reason, a lot of scripts rocked the house!

To everyone on this list, a big congratulations. We will be reading your scripts again in the semifinal round. To all of you folks who didn't make the quarterfinals, don't get discouraged! Sometimes success is just a quick polish or maybe a class or a script analysis away. And to that end, we plan on sending out the mini-analyses on every submission by June 9th. . We will announce the semifinalists June 20th.

And don't forget that everyone who entered Writers on the Storm gets $10 off any Coverage, Ink analysis throughout 2006!

Without further ado, we proudly present the WOTS quarterfinalists. Nice work, everyone!

2012 by Susan Yeich
2 Bedroom 2 Bath by Scott Liapis
4-1-9 by Jake Van Vuuren
50-50 by Robert Henry Hill
58 Nights by Irving de la Concha
Absolution for the Innocent by John Heim
Adelitas by Sarah Vaill
A Family Dream by Constance Brenner
Age Before Beauty by Doris Gill
All the Stars In the Heavens by William Stoddard
American English by Phil Swinburne
Amputation Station by Richard Smith
Amy's Porch by Jennifer Buttell-Kersey
Ariadne's Thread by Stephen Callen
Attack of the Toaster! by Greg Quinn
Balls of Different Sizes by Robert Tobin & Leslie Coogan
Beneath The Mask by Robin Warder
Black Rising Sun by Susan Yeich
Blonds by Elizabeth Winstead
Blood Brothers by Patrick Wier
Blood of Angels by Reay Jespersen
Bloody Mary by Erica Land
Blue Notes by Vishal Reddy
Booker T. by J. Hol
Boys In Red by Jeffrey Davis
Broad Daylight by David Leonard
Broken English by Alexander Stirling
Broken Heartland by Greg Daubenspeck
Brutes by Mark Glinski
Bull Riders Only by Melinda May
Bury The Lead by Maureen Murphy
Butcher #57 by Lando Barbagli
Chasing Stephen Spielberg by Robert Tobin
Clear Heels by Dave Cooper
Colter's Hell by Robin Russin
Community Sports by Tom Thompson
Constantine the Great by David Mulholland
Cost of Living by Kellen Hertz
Cougar Run by Sean Kelly
Count Her Clock Wise by Christopher Canole
Crush On You by Maria Lusby
Danny Longlegs by Kelly Rowley
Dead End by Christopher Fry
Dead Man Running by Terence Loose
Demon Slayer by Anthony Pindrock
Diamond Trust by Tim Rosenow
Dimmesdale by Doug Molitor
Divorce In The White House by Dane Edward McCauley
Double Bind by Greg Daubenspeck
Driver Ed by Bill Ward
Echoes of Tiananmen by William Flannigan
Empire of the Wolf by Michael Kogge
Every Time I Go To Staten Island by Irin Evers
Exposure of War by Kevin Caruso
F*Stop by Roberta Degnore
Far From The Tree by Mary Batchellor
FATS by Mitchel Resnick
Felix The Flyer by Christopher Canole
Film As Literature by James Merrill
Finding Center by Richard Rossner
Finding Love At Mardi Gras by Anna Maganini
Fire and Rain by Phil Smy
Fire Ants by Daniel Barwick
Fishtown by Aaron Schnore
Forces Unseen by Curt Nickels
Fortunate Sons by Roy Schmitz
From the Old World by Adam Mosher
Fury by Dane Edward McCauley
Game Night by Chris DelliCarpini
G.I. Samurai by Carlton Saito
Good Ole Boy Band by Jason Ancona
Good Television by Matt Dallman
Healing Marie by James Ossi
Heavens to Betsy by Brad Hennig
He's A Winner by Warren Clarke
Hellsville by David Agranoff
High and Low And In Between by Suzanne Carney
Hopper by David Kurtz
Humanimal by Tim Wells
Hung Jury by Jason Siner
In Search of Captain Childe by Heather Rose
Ink by Eric Anderson & Scott Smith
Invasion of the Pod People by Craig Proudly
Iron Men by John Metzner
Jackie's Girls by Joan Kufrin
Jerusalem Idol by Lewis Papier
Jocks & Geeks by Marla Brandon
Jonathan's Missing by Leslie & Michael Green
Kakakarma by Carlota Bennett
Kingbird & Franklin by Donald Adams
Lady Jazz by Jean Hunter
Life Is What You Make it by Russell Dye
Looks That Kill by Robert Gemmill
Lost Souls by Bryan Carrigan
Love Conquers All by Dane Edward McCauley
Love Unexpected by Antoinette Ojeda
Lurch's Friends by Larry Boodry
Magick by Jeff Spry
Manhunters by Don Perez
Masque by Kellen Hertz
Miracles by Zack Heath
Mirror Mirror by Douglas Hall
Mister Perfect by Carri Karuhn
Mock Trial by Alex Lerner
NightStop by Tom Zambrano
Play With Fire by Karen Mobayed
Pool Guy by Saena Yi
Princess Reborn by Lee Tidball
Projekt Outcast by Dennis Shutty
Purr by Dave Hackett
Quiet Storm by Marc Kravitz
Rap Mitzvah by Jacqueline Frazier
Rational Panic by Robert Rhyne
Reality Show by Sara Denson
Red & Dead by Patrick Udomsak
Richard by Kathryne Sheard
Rise by Jason Crittenden
Rochester by Terry Frazier
Rotten by Hal Jordan
Sandscape by Joe Lam
Sandwiches & Chips by Ritchard Shadian
Santa Ana Winds by Paul Jarnagin
Scent by Ronald DiPrimio
Sculpting Acacia by Richard Abercrombie
Second Chance Dog by Mark O'Neill
Sherlock & Jack by Jeff Wolverton
Shroud of Darkness by Max Adams
Shuffle Hustle by Kevin Lewis
Smashed by Lisa Dahlseid
Sole Pursuit by Jason Siner
Songs For The Dead by Mark Tompkins
Sons of Illusion by Adriana Cepeda
Soul Calling by Victoria Sambursky
Spitting Image by Andrew Smith
Spring Break by Murray Spitzer
Stars and Bars by Troy DeRego
Stick & Stones by Kathryne Sheard
Stuck in the 80s by Seth Argabright
Sultana by Laqueta Lewis
Ten Shots of Tequila by Ted Gurich
Terror Alert by Bernie Felix, Jr.
The Art of Deception by Kevin Caruso
The Art of the Dodge by Donna Miller
The Backup by Anthony Sclafani, Jr.
The Beneficiary by Marshall Thornton
The Big Four Oh by Bernie Felix, Jr.
The Brick Layer by Laqueta Lewis
The Contest by Elizabeth Winstead
The Crescent City by Cathy Krasnianski
The Curse of Nostradamus by Robert Williams
The Dark Radius by Frederick Kim
The Dollmaker by Ned James Beedie
The Domain by Michael Raymond
The Essence of Anarchy by Brian Ivey
The Essence of Emily by Jack Brinkerhoff
The Fickle Pickle by Eric Johnson
The Fraternity by Jeff Wiegand
The Fun In Funeral by Mario Mojico
The Good War by Murray Spitzer
The Great Quest by Steve Weissman
The Joshua Device by John Connell
The Kray Survivors by Ronald Randolph
The Last Act by Nathan Perkins
The Last Campaign by Parrish Griggs
The Last Flight of The Blackbird by David Cooper
The Last Princess by Jacquelyn Prell
The Last Sky by Barbara Senatore
The Long Night by Barry Barclay
The Magick of Time by Patricia Joyce
The Man Behind The Man by Michael Brand
The Maple Gods by Lisa Judge
The Mothership by Scott Shackelford
The Newly Dead Game by David Warfield
The Perfect Proposal by Phil Olson
The Rut by Kevin Caruso
The Second Coming by Leroy Bryant
The Secret of the Smile by Robin Russin
The September Issue by Jeremy Vogel
The Stunning Box by David Bertoni
The Walk-Ons by Alexander Drummond
The Want Ad Widow by Sharon Shipley
The Rock of Abandon by Stephen Blackburn
Time Shift by Richard Joslyn
Time Surfer by Sandi Steinberg
Timing by Anthony Sclafani Jr.
TJ by Don Grail
To Dream of Life by Bradley Duncan
Tony See and The Salvador Deception by Russell Riggins
Top Story by Alberto Valenzuela
Tray People by Fred Pakiewicz
Trio by John Zussman
Tsunami Warning by Carlton Saito
Tunnel Rats by Robert Marks
Two Kings by Jason Wall
Tyler Hudson's Christmas Eve Adventure by Carol Hoffman
Ultraviolet Child by James Ossi
Vincent's Shadow by Don Perez
Viral by Mark Kratter
Voyage To Freedom by Larry Hedaa
War of the Galaxies by Thomas Eng
Warrior Pride by Fred Maske
Witness Creek by Ross Buckner
Worse Than Prison by Rick McCormick
Year of the Hangman by David Russotto
You're Invited by Jennifer Barrow
Zebalun by Peter Rex Wilkes
Zelko by James Dickson

STAND BY...

We've been working through the night to get all the scripts read by May 31st. And we did it. We will be posting the Writers on the Storm quarterfinalists WEDS 5/31.

We'll also announce the quarterfinalists in our newsletter which will go out in the next few days and post them on our websites.

Sit tight, folks!

--Jim Cirile

ALMOST THERE...

Hey, guys! We know you're all waiting on those contest results. We just wanted to let you know that we're almost done. We expect to post the Writers on the Storm quarterfinalists pretty soon. We received a lot of entries, more than double what most first-time contests receive, and so we've been working overtime to get those scripts read and to write mini-evaluations for every one.

Most of the Coverage, Ink submissions (for analysis) submitted before the contest deadline have already been read, and we've been able to give several folks the good news that they've made it to the quarterfinal round. And while obviously not everyone can advance, we're pleased that all of you guys have been telling us how much your writing has improved from working with our analyses and making those revisions. There's always Writers on the Storm II, folks... it's never too early to start getting ready ;) (Okay, maybe it is too early--we had one fellow ask us if we were going to start up the contest again in June '06. Er, no on that one. Check back in January '07.)

One other thing to remember: even if you do not advance to the QFs, every entrant receives a mini-analysis, PLUS $10 off any Coverage Ink script analysis for the rest of 2006--so everyone's a winner. To claim your $10 discount just mention "WOTS contestant" on your Coverage, Ink order form.

Check back here soon for more, and GOOD LUCK, everyone!

Is Your Spec a Spec?

Cast a critical eye on your script with this handy quick reference guide from Coverage, Ink founder Jim Cirile.

So you got yer 128 pages of genius all ready to send to your agent or manager or even that producer’s assistant’s plant guy you met at last year’s Wombat Walloping Festival. Hold, young varlet! Run through this quick checklist of common mistakes BEFORE sending it out.

CAN YOUR DEPTH OF CHARACTER BE MEASURED IN MILLIMETERS?

Great actors will fight to play someone who is complex, richly detailed and interesting. Giving the character back story, family, friends, hobbies, quirks, peccadilloes, idiosyncrasies, etc., goes a long way towards building a multidimensional person that we want to watch a movie about. Does he or she have a dramatic flaw or a goal? What personal problem does this character need to solve? How does he arc or change? What does he learn during the course of the story, and how does it enable him to resolve his internal AND external issues? As Michael Lent incisively observed in a recent column, if your script is under 95 pages, that should be an immediate red flag—what’s likely missing is depth of character, which needs to be established in the form of character-defining scenes in Act 1.

WE’RE ALL CLAIRVOYANT WHERE FORMULAIC SCRIPTS ARE CONCERNED

Whenever you find your story heading in a predictable or cliché direction, do exactly the opposite thing than what the formula dictates. That will keep your writing fresh and give the reader that much-longed-for “surprise on every page.” If a reader can foresee where the plot is obviously going, you can bet her interest will evaporate like a saucer of isopropyl in the Gobi. So throw the reader a few curve balls. Use formula to your advantage. Know that at a certain time, formula will dictate a certain plot beat will happen. Then don’t do it. Do something completely different instead. Nothing makes a jaded reader love a script more than dashing their expectations! But that doesn’t mean they’ll love some contrived, ludicrous plot beat just because it breaks the mold. It still has to be logical--just unexpected.

(checkbox graphic) SHOULD YOUR EXECUTION BE EXECUTED?

Beware WORDINESS. A screenplay is not a novel. An overwritten script is not going to win you any points. Use the FEWEST WORDS POSSIBLE to convey your idea. Comb your script for redundancies in dialogue and scene description, and excise all unnecessary words/sentences/paragraphs/pages. Go through it line by line, asking yourself “Do I need every word in this sentence?” Remember, brevity is the soul of wit. Some good writer wrote that.

Producer Dan Ostroff once said that a poorly written script with a great story is worth a lot more than a well-executed one with a poor idea. But there aren’t too many of those see-the-forest-for-the-trees folks out there. You might be a natural storyteller who can hold a roomful of people captivated, but if you struggle with composing a sentence and don’t understand the concept of subject/verb agreement, you should probably consider finding a writing partner.

THE $50 MILLION QUESTION

Is your script sponge—er, movie-worthy? Is the central idea one that you can see millions of people spending ten bucks to see? The toughest note a reader can give is “Even the best-executed version of this story would likely not interest any producers.” Remember that the studios and even indies are specifically looking for projects that have a strong hook or bring something new to the table. Your straight-forward serial killer thriller isn’t going to interest anyone, because that theme is tired, your script brings nothing new to the genre, and the buyers can always adapt a James Patterson novel if they need a serial killer thriller to fill their slate. Similarly, your fantasy adventure movie with the enormous budget... why would any studio spend $100 million to make your movie when they can adapt a bestseller with its built-in audience? If it takes you six months to think of a unique, high-concept, commercial idea, then take the time. You’ll know when you have The Idea when you pitch the one-liner to someone and his eyes light up.

MICRO VS. MACRO

Get pro-level input on your script from your agent, manager, producer, a script analyst or coverage service. You ARE doing that, aren’t you? All scripts need work. How well the writer is capable of putting aside ego and implementing notes has everything to do their likelihood of being successful. More often than not, the writer will fix only the easiest notes, for example: “the dialogue on page 87 was a bit on the nose,” yet will ignore “our lead vanishes for 36 pages, leaving insignificant secondary characters to pass the time with small talk.” Oftentimes significant changes need to be made. They may require tossing out an entire act, completely rethinking a main character, etc. In short, they may require for you to DO SOME WORK.

ON THE NOSE

LET'S SAY Someone tells you that your writing is "on the nose." You nod your head and go, "Uh, okay." But if you're like most folks not "in" on the Hollywood shorthand, you have no idea what this means. So I'm going to lay it out right now.

"On the nose" simply means that in your dialogue, people say exactly what they're thinking.

Unless you're writing Data or Spock, that's generally not so great. In real life, people tend to avoid saying what they really think. They talk in circles, they hint, suggest, say things elliptically or simply with a look. Maybe they even say the exact opposite of what they mean, sometimes sarcastically, sometimes not.

Look at these two dialogue excerpts. The first is quite on the nose. The second is not. Which is better dialog?

RYAN
Are you accusing me of stealing?

JODY
Well, I do jump to conclusions
a lot. But you seem generally
untrustworthy, and I'm still
gun-shy from my disastrous
failed marriage, so yes, I am
accusing you of stealing.

Hmm. Or how about this:

RYAN
Are you accusing me of stealing?

JODY
Huh? Of course not! I just...
No, no, definitely not.

Jody sighs, uncertain.

Obviously the second example sounds a bit more authentic, and less stupid to boot... although the first version could work for a quirky character in a comedy.

You want your dialogue to sound like something a human might actually say, right? Read it ALOUD. Have a friend read it with you. Does it flow naturally? Does it seem clunky? How would you rephrase it into something perhaps not so on the nose, but that still gets the meaning across? Remember you can use all sorts of tricks--a coy look, a roll of the eyes, a dismissive wave, a sigh, biting of the lip, a raised eyebrow, etc.

And then even when someone explains it to you, more confusion inevitably follows. So is it ever okay to write on the nose? The answer is YES.

Here's the rule of thumb: There are two places in the script you should be right on the nose in your dialogue. The first is when you're describing your protagonist in the first ten pages. You want to make sure people GET what your protagonist's dramatic flaw is--the problem he's going to arc out of by the end of the story. So it doesn't hurt, for example, to have a supporting character say about the protagonist...

GEORGE
Man, Ryan might really get ahead
if he didn't keep shooting himself
in the foot with his
holier-than-thou attitude.

Smack! Yep, that one probably deviated someone's septum it was so on the nose. Yet it's often necessary. Even if we SEE (and we should) several instances of Ryan's aforementioned behavior, it's often necessary to "hit it hard" and state the dramatic need clearly. This is so folks GET IT. It also tells you what the theme of the story is, or what the story will REALLY be about--George's evolution into a better person.

The other time we want to be on the nose is when we're telling folks exactly what the plot is, or in other word's, the protagonist's goal. This generally comes at the end of Act 1 and propels us into Act 2, like this:

RYAN
Fine. I'll get your damn prize-winning
Cavalier King Charles Samoyed back
to Anchorage in time for the fricking
dog show, all right? And no bounty hunters
or representatives from FEMA are going
to stop me!

There you have it--very succinctly we have the protagonist tell us exactly what he intends to spend the next two acts of the movie attempting to accomplish. No beating around the proverbial bush here. Hit that puppy on the nose.

One other time you might want to be on the nose: in your description. Keep in mind that the "on the nose" note generally applies only to dialogue. Your description should be lean and clear. You do not want to risk losing anyone by being cute or sarcastic or evasive.

Now get back to writing, folks! (I know I won't. See piece on procrastination below...)

--Jim Cirile

That's a Wrap!

It's all over except the shouting.

As I write this, it's 12:15 AM on May 7th. Writers on the Storm is now officially closed. The contest exceeded all our expectations. We blew past the number of entries of most first-year contests (with plenty more to arrive by mail over the next couple of days) and quite a few established ones. That's good news for everybody--it means that the industry will sit up and take note, and it also means that we'll be able to bring Writers on the Storm back to you again next year, bigger, badder and beefier.

But the best news of all is that our coordinators tell me that they have been blown away by the quality of the submissions overall. According to coordinator Portia Jefferson, our ratio of good scripts to so-so ones is much better than any other contest she's ever worked on. Hopefully this means you guys are true students of the craft, always striving to improve--and the results are on the page.

Right now we're in the process of reading all the submissions. This is going to take a bit of time since we have to provide mini-analysis on each submission. But we still plan on announcing quarterfinalists on 5/31. Check this blog or www.writerstorm.com for updates.

So from the WOTS/Coverage Ink team to everyone who entered--a hearty THANK YOU for helping to make Writers on the Storm a smash hit. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to e-mail us at wotscompetition@aol.com.

You guys rock!

--Jim Cirile

Procrastination... Is Making Me Wait

Right now I am not writing.

Oh, it FEELS like I'm writing. I'm behind my computer. My fingers are clacking away on my Saitek Eclipse backlit keyboard. I've got my e-mail open in another window, which somehow in my mind is vaguely related to writing. And heck, I'm writing something about... well, not writing.

When it comes to procrastination, I am the master. I must eliminate every single last thing that can be done before I can even open Final Draft. First, of course, there's e-mail. Then there's phone calls to return. Then there's a mess in the kitchen. Then there's political blogs to read, online petitions to sign, scores to check. My daughter's fingerprints on my monitor need to be Windexed off. And oh, crap, I have to begin cooking supper (okay, it's 1 PM, but preparation is all.)

Before you know it, I've burned up most of my allotted 4 hours of writing time I give myself 3 times a week. Which is bad, because I've got deadlines. My column is always due next week. I'm not sure how, since I only have to deliver it every two months, yet it always seems to be due next week. I've got a screenplay due in 5 weeks. I have three rewrites on other scripts that I really should get to. Folks are waiting for those, too.

Sigh. Okay, I will. As soon as I have lunch. And go get my car washed. And scrub my toilet.

Something tells me I'm not alone. Could that be? Are there OTHERS of you out there who are in fact reading this basically as an excuse to not be writing? For shame! Close your web browser this instant and go write! In fact, if your write it on a blog, send me the link so I can read it and... not... be writing. Oh, never mind.

--Jim Cirile

WRITERS ON THE STORM contest update

An update from contest coordinator Portia Jefferson:

I've been impressed with the quality of entries thus far in the contest. Many of our readers have read for the top contests in town, and they have all been surprised at the quality of scripts Writers On The Storm has received. Many of the story premises are not only fresh and unique, but they have a great deal of commercial potential. The winning scripts for most contests tend to be dramas (usually period pieces) that deal with historical events, historical figures or serious issues in the world. While we too like well-written scripts in this genre, what sets us apart is that we are giving equal weight to comedies, broad comedies, romantic comedies, horror films, thrillers and other genre films. We are looking for great scripts that people will actually want to go see. We know the marketplace and we definitely are looking for a script that can, and will, sell. And we are going to do everything in our power to help our winning writer do so.

So, keep sending in comedies, thrillers, and genre scripts. We are eager to read them all.

A couple of tips from our readers to help make a good impression on them:

-- BRADS MATTER. Use three-hole-punch paper, with a white cardstock cover and backing. Use TWO brads - Acco 1 ¼ inch solid brass fasteners are the norm. You're right if you think it's a minor issue and that it shouldn't have any affect on the reader. But, unfortunately, first impressions matter, and if the writer doesn't have the script bound in the proper way, then we tend to think that they don't know much about proper structure either. It's trivial… but do it.

-- PROTAGONIST. We want to meet the protagonist by page three. AND we want to know WHO the protagonist is and what his or her goal is. This is the number one flaw with most scripts - it's either hard to identify the protagonist OR it's hard to identify the protagonist's goal. Make it crystal clear.

-- ACTION BLOCKS. Keep them short. Three to four lines at the most. If we see THICK, CHUNKY action blocks, we get bummed out. As a reader, it's awful to turn a page and see a BIG chunk of action. Break it up, make sure there's plenty of white space on the page. Make the script easy to read.

-- CONFLICT. Make sure there is conflict on every page of your script. The worst scripts have scenes with characters simply chatting to each other. If a scene does not move the story forward AND expand our understanding of the characters, then either rework it or cut it.

-- PARENTHETICALS. Don't over use these. Basically, you should only use them if you need to tell the reader whom a character is speaking to. If you have to tells us what the character is feeling, thinking or doing, then there is something wrong with the dialogue. The mood/emotions of the character should be evident by the dialogue. The first thing actors do when they get a script is to cross out the parentheticals. Let actors act!

-- DON'T DIRECT. Don't use "we see" in the script. Don't put in camera movements or credit sequences. Don't tell us what song is playing in a scene unless it is critical to the action of a scene. Don't use "cut to". Again, keep it lean, mean...

-- ENDING. Make it strong, memorable.

That's it... We are excited by the writers from across the country who have submitted scripts. Some writers outside LA have written to tell us that they feel that all contests favor writers that live in LA. NOT true. We are looking for great writing, great scripts... period. As a matter of fact, LA writers sometimes write about similar subject matter and set their scripts in... LA. So it's refreshing to get scripts/stories that have unique settings and to read writers with unique voices.

Good luck to everyone!!

WHERE'S THE CONFLICT?

by Greg D’Alessandro

I can’t take it anymore. As a reader in this town for over five years, I’m constantly asking myself the above question. A great number of scripts I read (professional and amateur) are lacking, if not devoid, of conflict. No overall dramatic tension and no dramatic tension in the scenes. When I read scene after scene of characters chatting with each other, talking about their iPods, the hot guy in the room, orange juice etc. – no matter how clever, witty or poetic – I want to hurl the script across the room. Actually, I DO hurl the script across the room. Conflict is a basic tenet of dramatic writing that goes back to Aristotle. A story without conflict is… the phonebook! Please, please… don’t write ANY scenes they are lacking strong dramatic conflict. This is what makes scenes come alive. This is what makes your story a page-turner. This is what makes the reader want to keep reading and the viewer want to keep watching. And, most importantly, this is what keeps me sane!

Let’s look at overall dramatic tension first. David Howard, the Founding Director of USC’s acclaimed Graduate Screenwriting Program, has defined ALL stories this way: “somebody wants something badly and is having difficulty getting it.” Simple, right? Wrong. You’d be surprised by the number of writers who can’t tell you WHAT the protagonist in their story wants, let alone WHY they are having difficulty getting it. The “what” can be discussed in a future article – and boy THAT’S a big topic - but with regard to conflict, answering the WHY will help the writer determine what the primary conflict is in the story. WHY is your protagonist having difficulty getting what they want? What are the OBSTACLES that are preventing them from achieving their goal?

It’s not a bad idea to list the obstacles that your protagonist faces in the story. Usually, there are at least five obstacles standing in the way of the protagonist. One of those obstacles is always the protagonist himself, because he or she has an arc. He or she is on transforming from a personality into a person, and is struggling internally with regard to the goal he or she is seeking. The other obstacles are external (mountains to climb, boyfriends to dump, aliens to eat, etc.). And, of course, you have antagonist(s) who are actively trying to stop the protagonist from getting what he or she wants (Darth Vader, The Wicked Witch of the West, Angelina Jolie, etc.) So make sure you know what the overall conflict is for your story. What does your protagonist want? What is preventing him from getting it? Make sure you can answer these questions simply and specifically.

Scenes. This is where the biggest problems are. Writers don’t “build” scenes like they should. Instead they write scenes that are “entertaining” or “clever” or “cool.” Yeah they’re cool, but they’re also… boring! Why? Because there’s no conflict! Writers sometimes balk at the suggestion of adding conflict to a scene because they think that conflict means two or more characters have to physically attack each other or they need to be screaming at each other. No, no, no. Conflict merely means that there are two (or more) characters in the scene that have opposing wants or intentions. Writers need to look at scenes from an actor’s perspective. Actors need to have an “intention” in a scene or else there’s nothing for them to play – they become part of the scenery. A dramatic scene is a story. It has a beginning, a middle and an end. And it has a character who “wants something badly but is having difficulty getting it.” Sound familiar? The protagonist in the scene has an overall goal for the story, yes, but in the scene at hand, he or she is taking one step on their journey to that goal and is encountering an obstacle that is preventing him or her from advancing. So, as Hal Ackerman the co-chair of UCLA’s MFA Screenwriting Program suggests, when writing a scene ask yourself this question: “what does my character want, and what is he doing NOW to get it?” Also ask yourself, “WHO is opposing the character in this scene”? If you identify what EACH character in a scene wants BEFORE you write the scene, it will make writing that scene much easier and it will ensure that you have a dynamic, dramatic scene.

Here’s an insider tip. After reading a script, I usually flip through it, stopping randomly at ten different pages. If there’s no conflict on five or more of those pages I IMMEDIATELY give the script a PASS. If there’s conflict on all ten pages, then I know the writer knows what he or she is doing and assume the story must be good as well. And guess what? I’m always right. Great writers write great scenes. And great scenes ALWAYS have strong conflict.

So, where’s the conflict? On EVERY single page of a script. No exceptions!

I Hate Contests

Seriously.

Never liked 'em much, never trusted 'em.

Okay, sure, there are some contests that will unquestionably help you if you win. I went to an awards dinner about five years ago and sat at the same table with three Nicholl Fellowship top ten folks. The room was rife was industry types. Gale Anne Hurd was also seated at the our table. Producer Sid Ganis came over to say hello. And I asked the three winners about how things were going for them, and all of them said they were getting tons of meetings and offers to sign with big agencies and management companies.

Me, I entered a script into Nicholl 11 years ago. I only made the quarterfinals, but I actually got a manager off it. Out of the blue, I got a call from this start-up management company (a pair of former UTA agents) who were hustling for new clients. They read my action script and signed me.

Okay, that's a good contest.

Then there are the others.

I've entered quite a few of them over the years, and in general, disappointment and a depleted bank account were the only results. Of course, that's to be expected, right? Not everyone can win. But it wasn't that long ago that I had a script make the top ten of a contest that I shall not name here. I only found out I'd placed 6th through a friend's chance web search, and he called me up and said, "Dude!" The contest management did not even bother to notify me. No prizes, not even postcard. Nothing.

Okay, that's a bad contest.

Talk about going from the sublime to the ridiculous. And so over the years I've entered several others. In a few of them I was eliminated in the first round; in others I made the top ten. One I even won (along with five others). But there was one thing all those non-Nicholl contests had in common:

Nothing ever happened because of them.

Okay, the one I won, I did get a few meetings with some low-level agents, and none of those guys seemed all that interested, frankly, in doing any actual work. But the others, nothing.

And so it was with these hesitations that Greg D'Alessandro--himself a multi-contest winner--and I sat down to brainstorm our own "nontest" which would eventually become Writers on the Storm. We agreed that never hearing anything back from a contest is hugely annoying. Contests like American Accolades and Slamdance give you feedback or coverage. So we decided to do the same--only cheaper. That's the second thing that bugged us about contests--the cost. That's one expensive lottery ticket.

But the single biggest thing is that: our contest had to mean something to the winner(s)' careers. And that's where we figured we could make a real difference. Because first off, we know some guys. So when we send the winners out with our recommendations, it will actually mean something to those folks. And second, since we're Coverage, Ink, we can use our team of pros to help the winning writer polish up that diamond to a blinding gleam before submitting it to the industry. Because if this thing does not pluck some writer from obscurity and launch their career, then what the hell is the point?

I still hate contests... but with any luck, after your winning script sells for $500K against a million, we'll raise the bar for all the other contests. That's what this is all about.

--Jim Cirile

WRITERS ON THE STORM DEADLINE EXTENDED!

Hi folks! Well, we went and did it. The deadline for Writers on the Storm has been extended from 4/15/06 to 5/6/06. That is our FINAL DEADLINE, and we will not accept any scripts submitted after that time.

Now it seems like every contest in the world extends at the very end. They generally wait until the last day and then spring it on everyone--and then they tack on an additional fee for the privilege of allowing you to submit after their deadline. Well, not us. When we decided to extend, we realized we'd better give people some notice. So we're announcing the extension a week ahead of our original deadline. Further, we are NOT tacking on any extra fee--entry is STILL a flat $35.

The reasons we decided to extend are twofold. First, we have heard from a LOT of folks that tax day (4/15) is a bad day to end a contest. A lot of folks are scrambling to get their taxes done (I'm one of them) and simply can't work on their scripts last minute like writers love to do. The other reason has to do with coinciding with the end of the semester for universities. There are a lot of folks taking classes who are finishing up their scripts over the next few weeks, and we want to make sure we're seeing the best, tightest, most polished scripts out there. We've already seen quite a few very good ones by the way.

So if you've already submitted, fear not--we're reading those scripts right now. If you haven't submitted yet, this gives you an extra 3 weeks to get that script polished.

And don't forget--if you submit your script to Coverage, Ink for analysis, it's automatically entered into the contest for FREE. If you get a Consider with Reservations or better for script, you're automatically a quarterfinalist. And if you do not, you still have time to make changes based on the analysis and resubmit--if you hurry!

Yep, Writers on the Storm is the ONLY contest that gives you a second chance--take advantage of it! And of course, may the best scripts win!