WRITERS ON THE STORM EXTENDED

Hey, Stormies!

We've gone and done it. The deadline for Writers on the Storm is now 4/15/07. So you all have a small reprieve! We've been getting a lot of mail from many of you guys, concerned you would not make the deadline and asking for us to extend. Since we're all writers here and we know all too well that greatness takes time, as does procrastination, hey, we're happy to oblige.

You will also notice we DID NOT RAISE THE PRICE for 'late entry', like everyone else does. It's still 35 bucks for a shot at your share of almost 15 grand in prizes!

So you guys now have a couple extra weeks to get those babies polished. 4/15/07 is the FINAL deadline, chicas. No more extensions. So writy-writy, polishy-polishy, and sendy-sendy! And I'll shut uppy!

--Portia Jefferson

Interview with Maia Peters from InkTip

by Jim Cirile

Time to go behind the scenes with InkTip, one of my favorite screenwriting websites. I’ve used InkTip for years, and I am always surprised when I talk to writers who don’t know about yet. For 50 bucks, inktip.com allows you to post a logline, treatment, synopsis and script online, where their huge database of producers, managers, etc., can browse them at their leisure. I have found that it is a great way to keep my ‘back catalog’ out there for the industry to find.

And while InkTip has plenty of big name companies on board, for my money, InkTip is also the best place to find what I call ‘below the radar’ producers--guys who are real but don’t have a studio deal; thus they are not being serviced by agencies and have no real way to find material other than word of mouth. Those are the guys you really want to target, since they are generally hungry, they read, and break new talent constantly, unlike the big prodcos who could care less about you unless you’re repped by a 3-letter agency.

Maia Peters gives us the lowdown on all things InkTip.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim Cirile: What was the genesis of inktip.com?

Maia Peters: Jerrol (LeBaron, InkTip founder) wrote a script and noticed how hard it was to get it read by anybody.

JC: Oh, he’s a writer himself?

MP: Not anymore.

JC: He wised up.

MP: (laughs) His drive has been to help the screenwriter get exposure. It started as Writers Script Network. I started here almost as soon as Jerrol opened the business (in 2000) and was the only employee for a number of years. We’ve been growing ever since. I’d come from a commercial production company, and I started here as data entry just doing the very tedious tasks. At the time, our website was, shall we say, a bit lacking (laughs), so most of the questions that we got from writers were about tech support, so I spent a lot of the day answering those types of questions. Over the years, the site has become more and more user-friendly. Now the questions are more about how we can help (writers) use the site to the best of their ability.

JC: When I first heard about InkTip way back when, I thought it was a great idea, and I posted some stuff. The price was right, and I got a couple of bites from below the radar” producers, which was awesome. It struck me—just how do those guys find scripts? Inktip seems to be a great way to reach those types of companies. How did you guys go about making these folks aware of InkTip?

MP: All the credit for that goes to Jerrol. It started with a survey to agents and managers and producers, directors to find out what they would need in a service like inktip. And then as the service has grown, we’ve cold-called people from the Hollywood Creative Directory, and word has really spread by word of mouth. We talk to the producers and find out what they’re looking for and get them to go to the site.

JC: Obviously your database of producers and industry types has grown as years have gone by. Would you say InkTip is a well-known resource to the industry?

MP: Most definitely. We’ve had 48 films produced off scripts placed on InkTip since 2003. If you go to the site, you’ll see a comprehensive list of all the InkTip deals. We are averaging three scripts set up, sold or optioned a week! This week we have Eva Mendes’ company looking for a script for her. Next week it could be somebody you’ve never heard of, but we’ve checked up on them, and they have the ability to get a feature film produced. It really ranges all over the board.

JC: So you guys do due diligence for any producer who tries to get on the list?

MP: Every single producer or agent to whom we give access, we do a due diligence.

JC: So my dog couldn’t just call up and say, “Rerro, R’I’d rike roo roption a ript?”

MP: (laughs) Absolutely not. Jerrol coming from the writer’s perspective, he wanted to be sure that security was at the forefront. It’s about (the prodco’s) contacts, their credits, their history. They have to have done something.

JC: Or if they’re junior, maybe they’re coming from a known company but have just gone out on their own, but people know who they are?

MP: Exactly. This happens rarely, but we have sometimes we get somebody who is independently funded and just needs a script for this one time.

JC: That’s a good point. What if it’s some guy out in Boise who has nothing to do with the movie business, but he’s got money? I wrote a script for a guy who was a fried chicken magnate from the east coast, who wanted in to the biz. It was a nice payday. But this guy had no ‘legitimacy.’ How would a guy like that get access?

MP: It totally depends on the individual. It’s a case-by-case basis. Often it’s a matter of if we were writers, would we want these people to have access to our script?

JC: Obviously you guys have had a lot of successes.

MP: We average three scripts optioned, or writers hired, every week. Since 2002 we have had over 400 scripts optioned, and over 200 writers gained representation.

JC: And you don’t take any commission or anything, right?

MP: Oh, no. Once the producer gets in touch with the writer, we are out of the loop.

JC: You also publish a preferred newsletter that contains companies looking for specific types of material. Is that getting a lot of play?

MP: We haven’t been doing that as long, but last year we have had 38 scripts optioned, I think. I think it has led to more produced films, because the producers are calling for a specific type of script. We’re just putting out a call to writers who have that type of script on their shelf that might qualify for the lead.

JC: What do you see in the future for InkTip?

MP: Our next big launch is inktippro.com, which is a site for industry professionals for networking, more than searching for scripts. It is only accessible to industry professionals. Mostly people who have qualified for Inktip will qualify for Inktip Pro. It’s a tool where they can put mandates out like, “We’re looking for a partially financed documentary that we can distribute,” for example. And if another producer on Inktip Pro sees that, and they have it, they can get in touch with them.

Otherwise, we just want to keep getting more and more features produced. We had 20 features produced last year. Granted some of them were for TV, or direct to DVD--

JC: Nothing wrong with that.

MP: Exactly. And we already have 20 slated for this year, so hopefully, knock on wood, those will all go through.

JC: Whenever I get your newsletter, I notice a specific type of script people tend to be looking for. Anybody who reads my column for Creative Screenwriting knows there are certain genres that are hotter than others at any given time.

MP: That is the main point—at any given time. It depends on what movie that last came out and was most popular.

JC: Of course, and what can be produced on a dime. I think it’s fair to say if you’re a young horror writer, and you’ve got a horror spec, and you get it uyp on Inktip, it will probably get some play, as opposed to your Elizabethan romantic drama.

MP: (laughs) Although there is a Civil War-era movie with a $60 million budget that is being produced from an Inktip script.

JC: That’s cool. I guess there’s a producer for every niche.

MP: But I think Jerrol would say that the genres that are most searched are thriller, horror and comedy.

JC: Any advice for folks who are maybe using Inktip now and are not getting the play that they want, or for potential future Inktip users?

MP: The logline is so important. It’s the first impression they’re gonna get, and if it’s too long, too convoluted, the producer is just going to skip past your listing without going further to read your synopsis or your script. We have lots of tips on loglines and synopses on the site (as do we: go here to read our article, Does Your Logline Rock? http://coverageink.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html).
The other advice would be to always be marketing your work. If you don’t get it out there, it won’t get made.

JC: Thanks, Maia! Check out InkTip at www.inktip.com.

Popular Films sets up "Hurricane"

Our pal Sean Sorensen from Popular Films just sent us this story from Variety. For those not in the know, Popular Films is a working production company that also, in partnership with Coverage, Ink, provides world-class screenplay development & mentoring services. For more on them, click HERE to read an in-depth interview with Popular Films' Tim Albaugh and Sean Sorensen.

'Hurricane' hits HBO
Project explores post-Katrina triumph
By STEVEN ZEITCHIK
HBO has bought "Hurricane Season," a project about a football team's unlikely triumph in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Pay net is developing a movie from the Neal Thompson book, which is due out this summer.

"Season" centers on the John Curtis Christian School football team, which in the fall of 2005 overcame poverty, homelessness and other hardships to win the state championship.

George Tillman and Robert Teitel will executive produce through their State Street Pictures shingle ("Barbershop"). Marty Adelstein and Scott Nemes will exec produce via their Adelstein Prods. banner ("Prison Break," "Black Christmas"). Sean Sorensen is attached as co-exec producer.

John Romano ("American Dreams," "American Pastoral") is attached to write.

Nemes described the project as "an inspirational story about a ravaged community."

HBO has been partial to Katrina stories, airing the Spike Lee docu "When the Levees Broke," which told the tale of ordinary Louisianans.

It also has put into development "Disaster," a nonfiction tale based on a book by Wall Street Journal reporters Christopher Cooper and Robert Block and attached "Frontline" exec producer David Fanning to produce.

Great work, Sean!

Update of the GODZ

Just got back from NYC, where we wrapped SHOWDOWN OF THE GODZ, Coverage Ink's very first film (a 20-minute comedy CI coproduced with director/producer Julien Calderbank and producer John Reefer, written by Jim Cirile & Aaron Schnore.) And what an amazing trip it was.

Even as I arrived in NYC the day before we were to begin our 1-week shoot, the problems began. First, our leading man David Caseman, whom we flew in from France to assay the role of Jesse, world's biggest Godzilla fan, arrived on set with a miserable cold, and even worse, his glasses had no nonreflective coating, meaning that movie lights were bouncing off them like solar flares. The glasses had to go--bummer, because A, David couldn't see, and B, they were actually integral to the character. Well, they WERE integral to the character! And so it goes in low-budget filmmaking--they're not integral anymore!

Fortunately, David was able to 'use' his misery which only helped his portrayal of Jesse--the put-upon loser whose world is disintegrating around him.

But more unsettling was that we still did not have our cast completely locked down even as we began shooting. Negotiations were still underway right up to the eleventh hour to get the awesome actor/musician Steve Burns ("Blue's Clues") for a role in the film. Though he loved the script, unfortunately we simply couldn't make it work with Steve's busy schedule (FYI, he is now the voice of Subway. Eat fresh, baby!) As Steve fell out, we began running behind. Very long shooting days made for a cranky crew. We were desperately low on money and several times I had to jump in and write checks to keep things together and pay for dinner and locations. Morale was plummetting.

And then something amazing happened.


We had been in negotiations with George Takei for weeks for the pivotal role of Ono, the wisecracking sushi shop owner who challenges Jesse to the Godzilla trivia showdown that ultimately changes their lives. You know how they say you should never write a role for a specific actor? Well, screw that. I wrote Ono for George Takei, and for me there was no other actor who could play that role. Sure, we had another fellow--an excellent actor to be sure--cast in the event we could not make it work with Mr. Takei. But getting Mr. Takei for this role became my goddamn mission.

And it was not easy. Takei is a busy man (now on NBC's "Heroes.") Plus the logistics of bringing Mr. Takei to NYC to the shoot were formidable and not inexpensive. And so even as Steve Burns' manager gave me the bad news, I found out that Mr. Takei, too, had a commitment on the day we needed him. But Takei loved the role and was very interested, so his people wanted to know--could we simply push the entire shoot back a day to accommodate him?

Gasp. Huddle time. I met with producer John Reefer to discuss exactly how much it would cost us to do just that--and if in fact it would even be feasible. Extending the shoot by one more day meant incurring sizable additional crew, equipment rental and insurance fees. Did I mention we were low on money?

Reefer came back with a figure of $3,500. Gulp. As of Monday, day three out of six, things looked bleak. We were not going to be able to accommodate Mr. Takei.

But then I remembered something--hey, this is a ^$#@!*&^! low-budget movie. We're supposed to be getting people to do this for love! I instructed Reefer to beg, plead, cajole and offer sloppy oral sex to everyone necessary. If we could get the cost of the extra day down to $1,000... we were a go.

Next morning, Reefer called me bubbling with excitement. He had gotten the extra day down to $800. Takei was on! I shelled out the dough out of my own pocket, closed the deal with Takei's people, and that night on set I had the pleasure of announcing to the cast and crew that George effin' Takei had accepted the role of Ono! Talk about a morale boost! A cheer went up like you would not believe, and from that point on, our overworked and underpaid crew gave 117%.

Thursday morning, Mr. Takei flew to New York City to be in our movie. Unfortunately, I had to leave the day he arrived... (grumble.) But by all accounts he was amazing--gracious, funny, charming, signing autographed Captain Sulu 8x10s for everyone and wowing our director, who humbly called directing Takei "the most amazing experience of my life." Simply put, Takei killed in the role; and we wrapped the movie a day late and a few dollars short.

But damn, the footage looks amazing.

Now we have to put it all together. I hear this will take more money. Uh oh...

--Jim C.

A Fun Little Formula

One of our clients by the name of Kevin Duff, currently a student in the UCLA Professional program in Screenwriting, sent this along to me, and I thought it was great. It's a little formula he's worked out. Check this out:

Formula for successful screenplay =

S + (C – E) + R
----------------
I

Where:

S = Structure
50 points – you nailed it Aristotle
40 points – you read some books, not bad
30 points – where’s the midpoint?
20 points – a one act play?
10 points – we’re not interested in your memoirs

C = Conflict
1 point for every scene with conflict, 30 max

E = Exposition
1 point for every scene with exposition, unlimited

R = Rewrites
5 points for every rewrite, 20 max

I = Idea
1.0 – producers are lining up
1.1 – it’s big, good buzz
1.2 – maybe it will become a cult hit
1.3 – even your mom is confused
1.4 – what else you got?

The Sundance Dance... Too Fancy to Dance?

Our resident Sundance expert Jason Siner tells it like it is from the snowy trenches of Park City...

I'm a six-time veteran of the Sundance film festival. I’ve written enthusiastic articles and blogs on how to get into the most exclusive parties, meet the Hollywood gatekeepers and do the whole festival on the cheap. I’ve promoted Sundance as a must-attend, and well-worth the investment, to anyone who’s seriously pursuing a career in The Biz.

This year I began to have doubts.

When I first started attending the festival years ago, tickets were eight dollars, and if you found some local voucher spots you could get them for five. This year, the cost was fifteen bucks a film! When you figure in that I usually see about twenty-five films during my ten-day stay, that’s quite a difference in cost. I don’t mind supporting budding filmmakers, but, come on, I’m paying more than the entire budget on some of their films.

Okay, that’s of course an exaggeration, especially at this “festival of the stars”. Each year, the films are more like polished studio pictures, instead of the scrappy independents made on a shoestring budget that are the staple of most every other film festival across the country. You can really tell the focus has shifted away from newer filmmakers when it comes to the panels. You won’t find seminars like “How to Get an Agent” here. Oh no. You’re more likely to find the topics like, “When Six Figures Is Not Enough.” or “How to Take On Disney Like You’re Harvey Weinstein”. Informative? Yes. Useful? Not for someone outside the system.

So, is that it? Do I now believe that Sundance is only for the industry insider or vacationing playboy? Well… no.

Okay, gone are the days when I did Sundance for $220 (that included the gas to drive up there!) However, for a director or screenwriter, this is the one time all those agents, managers, and development execs who wouldn’t give you the time of day in Los Angeles or New York, will welcome you with open arms. I have a very reputable agent I met up here reading my latest script right now. In fact, I’ve never had anyone I met here take longer than a week to get back to me, and I imagine it won’t be different this time.

See, the flip side of it being so difficult for someone outside the system to attend is that all the industry people up here consider any attendee to be worthy of their attention. There’s an actual interest when you state you’re a screenwriter. Have something that would be great for HBO? Play your cards right, and you’ll have the VP of development reading it in no time. Looking for a better agent (or even a first one)? Get into the right party and you’ll have them fighting over your card. This has all happened to me and could just as easily happen to you.

So it costs much more now than it used to, but if the outcome is the jumpstart of that successful career you’ve been striving for, isn’t it worth it? The real difference now is that you better be ready before you head up there. Your scripts need to be polished if you’re a screenwriter (I know this great service called Coverage, Ink...) (Gosh, thanks, Jason! Your payola is in the mail – Jim) or your demo reel needs to be professional if you’re a director. You’ll get your chance, but be ready.

And look, it will cost you a pretty penny, but it’s a good investment. At the very least, you’ll see some great films, meet great people, and maybe even score some great swag. So, until they build a security wall around Park City, the festival and all its opportunities are still accessible by us struggling artists. It’s just now, more than ever, you need to be ready to dance the dance.

Jason Siner kicked everyone’s butt when he won the CS Open at the Screenwriting Expo three years ago. He is a poker playin’,sword-fightin’ screenwriter based in Los Angeles. His article “Jason Siner’s 18+ Ways To Do Sundance” was published in the National Film Commission newsletter nationwide.

Just Do It!

Making Your Own Movie Is Easier (Much Harder) Than You Thought...

I wanted to tell you guys a little bit more about the first short being coproduced by Coverage, Ink. The film is called SHOWDOWN OF THE GODZ, script by myself and Aaron Schnore, and directed by Julien Calderbank, produced by John Reefer.

Aaron is a talented NYC writer who is hooked up in the NYC film world, and has had several exemplary shorts produced including RHYME ANIMAL, AVE X and WHITE CURE. In October he pitched me an idea for a comedy about a loser, the world's biggest Godzilla fan, who is challenged to a Godzilla trivia showdown with the soon-to-retire 84-year-old archivist from Toho Studios--the keeper of all Godzilla knowledge. If the loser wins, he gets the guy’s job. But meanwhile, the guy’s marriage is coming apart as he singlemindedly trains for this idiotic dream.

So we banged out a script together and looked to see what we could do with it.

I have been so programmed by years of being in the Hollywood trenches that the idea of mounting a production myself seemed ludicrous. No, I had to find some producer to buy/option the script, then sit back, hands-off, while the project staggered along through rewrites, only to inevitably crash and burn courtesy of some executive changeover, sending the project into turnaround. Hmm. Come to think of it, that sucks.

But Aaron actually MAKES movies. What a concept! So we set about the radical notion trying to do GODZ ourselves. But... how? Well, it’s easy. Sort of. Just do it. Kind of.

In a nutshell, we needed to find: A, money, B, a director (since neither of us were inclined/competent to do it,) C, a producer, and, oh, yeah, all the other stuff--camera package, actors, crew, locations, etc. Where to begin?

Believe it or not, we actually found our very talented young director Julien Calderbank through... Craig’s List. Julien had a sharp reel and by some amazing synchronicity was looking for a project to shoot in February. Even more astonishing, he brought a good chunk of the financing to the table. Aaron also set up our camera package through a director he met on Craig's List. Through free ads, we found the linchpins for the entire project!

Once Julien came on board, we did a polish on the script and set out finding Big Puzzle Piece #2--a line producer. We needed somebody who knew the city, was seasoned, and knew how to get things like permits and insurance and how to deal with SAG. Through Aaron’s connex we found the amazing John Reefer. In under 6 weeks from completion of the script, we had the team, the money (with Coverage, Ink kicking in the balance of the film’s $12K budget) and we were rarin’ to go.

Let’s face it, it gets damn frustrating sitting around waiting for Hollywood to buy a script from you. I’m lucky enough to have had a few things produced, but damn, my last feature was 9 years ago already. Thus it dawned on me right around Christmas--holy crap, we’re making a movie. Simply by placing an ad, making a couple calls, and getting off our butts to make it happen.

The last big piece of the puzzle: a *star*. Sure, we found a bunch of amazing but relatively unknown leading men we could get for a buck. But I know that one very big way to get people to pay attention to a short is to put a Name in it. While we couldn't afford the big salary of a Name name, we could certainly afford a well-known respected actor, if not a star, for the lead role--someone everybody knows, perhaps from some iconic TV role. Enter my friends at The Gersh Agency (this is where writing Agent’s Hot Sheet has its advantages.) They immediately hooked me up with ten terrific NYC actors. And now we are about to extend an offer to one of them (can’t say who yet.)

The point of all this? It’s been both incredibly easy, and at the same time tricky and unexpectedly time-consuming, to mount a short. But damn, has it been invigorating. I HIGHLY recommend it. All of you guys who are in the doldrums because your last spec got no play, or your fist is raw and bloody from banging on Hollywood’s razor-wired door, why not write something and go shoot it?

Of course, I know how hard it is to get your short into the bigger festivals nowadays. Don’t talk to me about that right now, Buzzkill! Right now I’m looking at actually having 15 minutes of film in the can soon. Allow me to enjoy the moment of empowerment. A year from now I’ll write you all gloom and doom about how having a short nowadays is worthless ;)

--Jim Cirile

Save the Cat! and The Writers Store Join WOTS

To ice the proverbial cake on our Writers on the Storm prize package, we are pleased to announce new prizes from two majors in the world of screenwriting.

I was first turned on to Blake Snyder's best-selling, award-winning book "Save the Cat!" while at UCLA. Teacher Kris Young presented Snyder's beat sheet map, and I was struck by both its simplicity and its usefulness. I personally use "Save the Cat!", and so it was natural that I ask Blake to come on board the contest. While the world is glutted with screenwriting books, "Save the Cat!" is one of an elite few that Coverage, Ink recommends. A multiproduced screenwriter and world-renown screenwriting guru, Blake's offering up seminar admissions (a 2-weekend long workshop--he's currently touring the US!), copies of his book and the new Save the Cat! software, which I'm dying to check out myself. In fact, I just ordered a copy of it from our OTHER new sponsor...

The Writers Store! Yep, the one and only! If you live in LA and have any inclination towards writing, you've likely been to The Writers Store. It is the only place of its kind--a retail store just for screenwriters. Located on Westwood Blvd just minutes from UCLA, the Writers Store has the most amazingly friendly staff, and is about the only place I can find that actually carries Acco brand genuine brass brads! I went in there one day with concerns about which screenwriting software to buy, and a helpful staffer guided me through the pros and cons of all the major programs in no time. A very, very cool place, and their website (www.writerstore.com) is a must-bookmark resource. The Writers Store is offering gift certificates and -- brace yourself -- 10% off for all Writers on the Storm contestants! Holy cow!

I am now very proud to announce these two guys as Writers on the Storm sponsors. We now have a development and marketing-packed prize package that I don't think any other contest can even approach!

Check out their websites: www.blakesnyder.com and www.writersstore.com.

And as always, let me know what you guys think!

Best regards,

Jim Cirile

WRITERS ON THE STORM 2

Writers on the Storm 2 has launched. Check it out HERE.

Get Popular!

Working Prodco Launches Script Development Service

by Jim Cirile

I recently chatted with Sean Sorensen and Tim Albaugh, the execs behind Hollywood production company Popular Films. Popular is on a roll, setting up a pile of projects lately, including Sealand at Warner Bros.; Hurricane Season, which Sean is co-executive producing with Adelstein Productions and State Street Pictures at HBO; Live Nude Girls Unite! which Sean is writing and producing at Reason Pictures, with Nicole Kassell (The Woodsman) attached to direct; Weasel which Sean and Tim are producing with Echo Lake Entertainment; and Croak which is set up at Hudson River Entertainment..

Now Popular Films, in alliance with Coverage, Ink, is now offering screenplay consulting services. I know of no other real, working production company that offers this. That means that anybody can now get the awesome consulting power of these smart execs behind their script. And unlike many consultants, these guys are actually on the front lines, working in the biz. Furthermore, Tim was my teacher in the UCLA Professional Program in Screenwriting, and I can attest to his top-notch story savvy. Simply put: you don’t get much better than these guys.

Unlike most other consultants, if Popular Films analyzes your script, they will actually meet with you in person (or by phone if you’re not in LA) for a 90-minute in-depth meeting about your script. For more info on this cool new service, click HERE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Jim Cirile: Tell me a little bit about each of you and how you got into the business.

Sean Sorensen: Ever since I saw Star Wars, I was hooked on movies. That was a galvanizing moment for me. I was only 4 or 5, but I knew I was going to be in the movie business. At first I thought I was going to be an actor, but ultimately I found my niche in producing and crafting stories. I have a pretty good eye for what makes a movie. My big break was when I got the rights to the Sealand project and then sold it to Warner Bros. I wrote the script and I’m executive producing the movie with Nick Wechsler (Drugstore Cowboy, Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain.)

Tim Albaugh: I was on track to be an entertainment attorney in the Bay Area, putting together limited partnerships for independent films. My last quarter as an undergrad before I was going off to law school, I took a screenwriting class. I enjoyed it and wrote a script that won a major competition, wound up going to grad school at UCLA instead, and then wrote a script there that got me an agent, and that was also the first script I had produced (Do Me a Favor).

JC: Your folks must have been ready to strangle you—abandoning a lucrative career for one of likely destitution and poverty.

TA: (laughs) No, my mom is okay with it as long as I’m not doing drugs.

JC: So, how did you guys hook up?

SS: Well, you know, they have those ads in the back of LA Weekly…

(everyone laughs)

TA: Actually, I met Sean much like how I met you, Jim—Sean was in one of my (UCLA) Professional Program classes. I found him to be a good writer and very entertaining. I gave him notes on one of his scripts, and we talked about our situation. He brought one thing to the table, and I brought another thing; we decided to sit at the table together.

JC: Was Sealand the first project you guys had collaborated on?

TA: Sean had sold the pitch. He wrote the script, and we worked together on fine tuning it. I was there to give him guidance and notes and input.

JC: Whose idea was it to form Popular Films?

TA: Sean had already started the company, and then I came on board. Our roles are that Sean has nurtured the majority of the contacts on the business side, and I’ve nurtured the contacts on the creative side. I have constant access to new material, so my role is to find stuff and develop it, and Sean’s role is also to develop and then get it out there.

JC: And you both write.

TA: Yeah. Sean just finished an assignment for a company (Whiteout for Hudson River Entertainment).

SS: Producing is definitely what Popular Films is about, but I’m still out there as a writer.

TA: The ultimate goal of the company is to be a strong production company, a real force in town.

SS: Popular Films is a production company where we develop scripts in-house then set them up at studios or with independent financiers.

TA: And one of our strengths is that we are both writers and have been in the situations that writers find themselves in and can approach things from the writer’s and producer’s perspective. It’s a double-edged sword. We’re able to work with the writer and know exactly what writers may be struggling with, but more often than not we also know how to fix it because we’ve been there before.

JC: Tell me about some of your success stories.

SS: The first one (we set up) was Weasel.

TA: Weasel was written by a guy named Steve Bagatourian, who also had a film called American Gun produced, which is currently nominated for three Independent Spirit Awards. I’ve been involved in the development of a lot of his scripts. Weasel was one that he wrote in a class of mine. I continued to help him develop it, and then I introduced him and the material to Sean. We developed it with him a little more, and then we shopped it around, and ultimately Echo Lake Productions stepped up and acquired the script, and we’re producing the film with them.

SS: We’re out to A-list directors on that project right now. It’s very exciting. Weasel is gonna be a killer movie.

JC: So what else is going on with Popular Films now?

SS: We’re trying to get movies made. In fact, I’m in my car right now on my way to HBO to attach a writer to one of the projects we’re producing there. We have six movies set up, and have just acquired the rights to a couple more projects.

JC: So why did you guys decide to offer development services to everyone?

TA: Obviously, part of it is us looking for new material, but it’s also us wanting to help a writer get a foot in the door. We can offer something that most consultants can’t, which is that we’re actively involved in the business. So we know what people are looking for, and we know what works and doesn’t work. So our clients are getting notes from people who know what it takes. I mean, obviously, we’re not Jerry Bruckheimer and Brian Grazer yet, but we’re definitely up and coming. We’re accessible to people. And if people want to go along with us on that ride, that’s great. You can talk to anybody who we’ve set up projects for, and they’ll tell you that we’re on the up and up, we’re fun to work with, and ultimately there are results.

JC: There are a lot of consultants out there who have no industry cred, who are out there trying to take people’s money.

TA: Sure. But like I said, we’re on the front lines. There’s an opportunity to provide a service, backed by our proven track record as writers/producers. The idea is that we’re helping people, with the hope that we may also be able to discover someone who might be the next ‘something else.’ You’ve got to keep your ear to the ground, keep looking for people like that. There’s something exciting and satisfying about finding someone new and interesting who’s just breaking in.

JC: You guys were kind enough to read a few of the Writers on the Storm top ten from this past year. None of them were right for you guys, but we appreciate your taking the time to read them. For this year’s WOTS participants, do you have any advice?

TA: Jim, I read a lot of scripts through Popular Films and UCLA, and I know you also read a lot of scripts through your company. The thing I see a lot is people writing “documents” - not movies. I read too many screenplays that aren’t movies.

SS: You have to keep an eye on the marketplace, find a way to have a fresh, original take. That’s difficult to do, but it’s what’s going to make you stand out amongst the clutter.

For more info on how to get Popular Films behind your screenplay, check them out HERE. And remember, all submissions between 1/2/07 and 3/20/07 are automatically entered into Writers on the Storm at no extra charge.

##

WRITERS ON THE STORM... GETTING READY

Crazy-busy around here the past few weeks as we prep for the launch of Writers on the Storm 2 on January 2nd. But it's a good busy. We learned a lot from the first contest, and this year we have made a bunch of changes -- but have kept all the cool stuff about the first contest.

Oh, and we've upped the prize package to over 12 grand in prizes. No other contest puts this much development muscle behind your script! Check it out here.

Entry is still free with any Coverage, Ink analysis; top ten percent (all 'consider with reservations' or better for script) automatically advance to the quarterfinal round. And if you seubmit your script to Coverage, ink, you can polish the script as many times as you want and resubmit the script either to CI or directly to the contest (paying the $35 entry fee.) This unique 'do-over' feature means you can actually develop your script with us right up till the end of the contest (3/20/07.) Now there's a real reason to enter a contest early!

Much more to tell, but for now check out the contest site at www.writerstorm.com for more info.

--Jim Cirile

"LARGE"--and Not in Charge

Everyone, right now: stop using the word "large."

You think I'm joking, right? Jim's lost it. Oh, nay, gentle readers. Allow me to explain.

"Large" is a lazy adjective. It's also often vague, generally unnecessary and perhaps even meaningless. When I read a script--and I read lots of 'em--I almost always see way too many LARGES--sometimes a dozen of 'em on the same page. And the sad part is most writers never even realize what they're doing.

Interestingly, "small" is not nearly as over- or thoughtlessly used as "large"--but "young" is. Let me whip out a few recent examples.

1) Peter opens up a large can of coffee.

Okay, do we really need the word LARGE here? How many sizes of coffee cans are there? I think the writer just threw a "large" in there because he was conditioned to use an adjective, so he used the first one he thought of. How about "Peter opens a can of coffee"?

2) Marge storms into the large Wal-Mart.

INT. WAL-MART - CONTINUOUS

She approaches a large CLERK (30s).

Okay, a LARGE Wal-Mart? I know, I know, they have regular Wal-Marts and Supercenters, but if it's a Supercenter, say so. Why use large? Isn't "Wal-Mart" enough? We all draw an immediate mental picture that the word "large" fails to enhance.

I'm willing to let "large CLERK" slide, since that's a fair description--but it is a bit boring. Can't we think of a less lazy way to describe him? How about "obese with thick glasses and a combover"?

3) Inside stand THREE YOUNG GIRLS.

Too vague. What does this mean? Are we talking toddlers? Teenagers? twenty-somethings? "Young Girls" could apply to any of these groups. It tells us nothing. Thank God it wasn't "THREE LARGE YOUNG GIRLS"!

When you're writing, analyze your adjectives carefully. If an artist carelessly slops on a color he hasn't considered thoughtfully, it will detract from his overall painting. Same thing with your adjectives. Train yourself not to fall back on tired, vague adjectives like LARGE. Choose a better adjective, and watch your pages come alive!

--Jim Cirile

Crappy Feet

Fair warning: Happy Feet is not so good.

Coverage, Ink has consulted on several animated feature scripts this year, and pretty much ALL of them were better than Happy Feet. Okay, while it wasn't a terrible movie by any means, neither was it very good. And its abject lameness, frankly, took me by surprise. First of all, Roeper & last week's guest critic gave it two thumbs up, and I generally find Roeper to have tastes similar to my own. Secondly, the film had a %$#^&*!%!! $42 million opening weekend, inexplicably besting the excellent Casino Royale by $2 million. Those are outrageously strong numbers, and in fact the boxoffice tally alone led me to think that this might be the film to lead feature animation--of which I am a particular fan--out of the doldrums it has been in for much of this year (due to oversaturation).



Indeed, the number of animated films that have underperformed is staggering. The Wild, The Ant Bully, Barnyard, etc., have left a bad taste in the industry's mouth. Flushed Away, which cost $150 million, was deemed such a failure it caused Dreamworks to sever their 5-picture deal with Wallace & Grommit creators Aardman after only two films, and they will likely take a massive write-down on the loss. Cars and Over the Hedge were about the only bright spots in an otherwise fairly bleak year for animation. And so I was particularly excited to see what Happy Feet brings to the table.

Unfortunately, the answer seems to be: an adorable ad campaign.

Before the movie today, I asked my 6-year-old why she wanted to see Happy Feet, yet had no interest in seeing Flushed Away, even though she had a bunch of the Flushed Away happy meal toys and knew the characters' names. She told me that Flushed Away looks yucky. It has rats and sewers and slugs. Happy Feet on the other had, has a cute little dancing penguin. Happy Feet marketing team: mission accomplished.

Here's the thing: Happy Feet just did not work, and on many levels. Firstly, story: one thing we always preach here at CI is that the protagonist needs to have a CLEAR and compelling quest. That quest forms the throughline, or spine, of the script. Look back on just about ANY great movie and you'll see that rule applies.

In Happy Feet, we have several vague storylines all competing: the protagonist Bumble is trying to A, win over an elusive, desirable girl who can sing (but he can't,) B, he wants to fit in with his group because he is different (again, he can't sing), and C, the penguins are being fished out by humans, and someone needs to figure out how to stop it. Eventually, and unsatisfyingly, C eventually becomes the dominant plot thread. This plot thread never seems like an all-important personal quest to Bumble. A and B do. The net result is the entire film has a feeling of inertia. About halfway through I turned to my wife and said, "Is it just me, or does this movie suck?" And she nodded, yep, it sucks.

Worse is that Bumble manages to somehow solve the problem in a completely illogical way. Even though it's clear he cannot communicate with the humans, the humans somehow divine that they need to stop fishing the monarch penguins' ice floe. And how does Bumble make his message clear to the humans? By coordinating the penguin flock into a massive tap dance.

WHAT THE F?

Now I have to be honest. I had actually walked out by this point. I haven't walked out of a film in years; but with 10 minutes left to go in Happy Feet, I so could not give a crap that I bailed to go look at posters in the lobby (my wife and child later filled me in on the ending.) But I mean COME ON. You know, there's a reason why, in Charlotte's Web,(which they showed the trailer for right before Happy Feet!)the animals have to figure out HOW TO COMMUNICATE with the humans to stop the threat. This should have been something organic and logical that Bumble should have had to do in order to stop the overfishing threat. But... tap-dancing?



It didn't help that the movie was not even the tiniest bit funny (but for a few yuks courtesy of ever-enthusiastic Robin Williams as pseudo-Mexican penguin Ramon) and even worse, the ad campaign turns out to be disingenous and misleading. The cute penguin is in the movie for about ten minutes. Then he grows up into not-so-cute penguin Bumble (Elijah Wood.) Had the film actually made LITTLE Bumble the protagonist, the film would likely have been much more engaging. Add in some fairly rote chases and you have two hours of time where I was sitting there thinking, jeez, I cannot believe I paid for this. Boy, am I a SUCKER.

A few weeks back I saw the underrated but very successful Over the Hedge, a very well-done animated adventure that grossed $155 million domestic box office--fantastic numbers. In that film, the hero had a clear objective; the movie was hilarious; its internal logic made perfect sense, and it had genuine heart and an arc for the hero, whereas Happy Feet has none. I think I need to rent it again to get the taste out of penguin feet out of my mouth.

Producers, if you're looking for a GOOD animated spec, we know of several. Give us a shout. And, parents, if you're looking for a film to take the kids to this weekend, well, something tells me the fine team behind Wallace & Grommitt's movie is probably far more deserving of your 10 bucks... rats and slugs notwithstanding.

--Jim Cirile

Blond... James Blond

I have to admit, I'm one of the ones who had trouble with the blond hair. I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to these things. I like my iconic movie heroes to look "on model." While I thought "Batman Begins" was an excellent film, I hated the suit design. It almost ruined the whole movie for me, because it's too far off-model. Same thing with the atrocious Superman suit redesign from "Superman Returns." And now we have a new Bond, and he's... blond.

But now having seen "Casino Royale", I have to say that the hair is about the only thing they didn't get right.

Reviewers are calling CR the best Bond film since "Goldfinger," and much praise is being deservedly heaped upon Daniel Craig for his believable and gritty Bond. But I think the real praise is deserved by the screenwriters Neal Purvis & Robert Wade along with Paul Haggis.

I am what you call a literary Bond fan. I've read all the Fleming novels several times, and I believe that while a few of the films have been quite good, on the whole they pale next to the Fleming books. Fleming wrote the most delicious prose imaginable--rich and detailed and incredibly thoughtful. When you read a Fleming Bond novel, you're right there alongside him, and you understand the minutiae of the world of the story thanks to Fleming's meticulous research and painterly prose. The movies, on the other hand, turned Bond into a caricature after "Goldfinger" (1964) and left behind much of what made Bond work on the page. Fleming's Bond was a fallible, brooding, charming but often cruel man who was often his own worst enemy. While there was some minor gadgetry in the books, the character mostly depended upon his wits and sheer physicality to get him through.

And he was particularly vulnerable when he fully opened up his heart, as he did on two notable occasions in the books--"On Her Majesty's Secret Service," and "Casino Royale." Neither ended well. In fact, the film version of "OHMSS," long viewed as the forgotten Bond film (since it starred one-off Bond George Lazenby) was the most faithful of all the films to the book, even including Bond's marriage (and the heart-rending ending where Bond, having found happiness for the first time, watches his wife get assassinated before his eyes.)

Thus I entered the theater with trepidation. For years, every time a Bond film would come out, we'd hear someone say in an interview "they're trying to go back to the books" or "rediscover Fleming" or "bring a new edge to the character" and so forth. We heard this from Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, and they were full of crap, and every single one of their films stank and continued the slow and painful destruction of a film icon. By the time Brosnan's run was done, I had sworn off Bond films. I simply could not stand to watch the character be put into another series of idiotic chases, explosions and stunts while having no emotional core to drive the plots. Fleming knew that the plots had to be fantastical but also believable, something the filmmakers long forgot.

Well, folks, I am very very pleased right about now. They finally GOT IT RIGHT.

"Casino Royale" is, to my mind, a textbook example of how to handle a tricky adaptation. The original book was not very cinematic. It was simply a long chemin de fer (a French card game--not poker, as in the movie) game, with a few attempts on Bond's life; but at its core was Bond's romance with Vesper Lynd. Here Bond for the first, but not the last time, dropped his guard and lived to regret it. A few years back I consulted on a fairly literal adaption of the book which a fellow had written on spec. While that version was lovingly faithful to the novel, it also made clear just how poorly a literal adaptation would work on screen. Concessions needed to be made to accepted movie structure, but also to the expectations audiences have developed of the cinematic Bond character.

This version of "Casino Royale" handles the adaptation masterfully. While much of the story is invented out of whole cloth, several key setpieces and plot events are true to the 1952 novel that launched the whole Bond franchise. Astonishingly, the torture scene--which I had thought to be very problematic to put on film--along with much of the third act of the book, was retained with incredible fidelity to the source material. Bond is put through the wringer here, folks. This is what makes him who he is. And we finally get to see it -- the way Fleming intended.

Most importantly, the character of Bond is faithful to the book, and in fact to the way Fleming further fleshed out the character in later novels. As I watched Craig breathe life into this new, reborn cinematic Bond, I almost cried out with excitement, because here, for the very first time--even moreso than Connery's version--this cinematic Bond finally is now the same man as the literary Bond. Best of all, this Bond actually arcs, like all good cinematic heroes do. We see WHY he became Bond. All the pieces of the puzzle finally fall into place for the cinematic Bond. And that, friends, is a glorious thing.

Blond hair? Hey, you know what? Having seen the movie, I am jumping off the haters' bandwagon. Just call me Blond... James Blond.

--Jim Cirile

Mama, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Screenwriters

I have a 6-year-old daughter. She’s the light of my life, of course; cute and fun and smart and a total daddy’s girl, as all proper 6-year-olds should be ;)

And so one of the things we have been trying to do is find an area of interest for Alexandra that she really sparks to and wants to pursue. Indeed, we’ve tried all the usual activities that one does for kids—piano, soccer, art, karate, ballet, gymnastics, baseball, etc. And yet none of that has really taken. What generally happens is that she loses interest after about six months and would rather simply stay home and play, either with daddy or just by herself.


Of course, staying home and playing has all those other things beat, because one gets to create one’s own worlds. Heck, this only child loves creating cities out of Lego which she populates with dozens of toys, each with a very distinct personality--from the very British and proper Lucy Moose to a family of hapless, scheming, hungry alligators, to a duo of nogoodnik Lego chickadees with outrageously huge hats who are consumed with stealing treasure (and sound just like Elmo.) Of course it helps immensely that daddy is a bit of an amateur voice artist, and thus I voice many of the characters in cartoon and muppet character voices, while Alexandra rises to the challenge and has come up with dialects for the characters she performs.

You can see where this is heading. This kid, sadly, is developing an imagination.

It also doesn’t help that she sees daddy constantly reading and writing and editing scripts, coordinating writing contests, etc. She sits with me sometimes and asks if she can man the red pen when I do script mark-ups, and I dutifully will point out missing punctuation and such that she can circle.

The other day she came up to me and said, “Daddy, can we write a script and make a movie?”

My heart sank.

Okay, okay. You’re thinking I’m nuts, right? Why wouldn’t I want my daughter to be interested in moviemaking? After all, I’m in it every day. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to share all this with her—seeing as I do anyway? Well, of course. But here’s the thing. Parents try to protect their children. And the thing that I most want to protect her from is the “life” of a screenwriter.

I’ve always viewed the screenwriter’s existence as long periods of rejection punctuated by occasional flashes of false hope. I also always say in Hollywood, any deal that is absolutely, 100% a sure thing, is at best a remote possibility. You can quote me on both ;) Seriously, I moved out to Los Angeles 15 years ago to pursue screenwriting. In that time, I have had years where I made a lot of money, but plenty of years in which I did not make a dime from writing. I’ve been involved in quite a few projects which slowly and painfully fizzled—as have many of you, I’m sure. There have been periods of intense and painful introspection, wondering if I should not have chosen a civil service job with a frickin’ pension. Of course, you forget about all that when you get a little success. But looking back on 15 years, when I think, Good lord, if I was a cop, I’d be 5 years away from being able to retire with half pension—jeez, it is withering.

Superagent Emile Gladstone once told me that the life expectancy of the average working writer in Hollywood is five years. Think about that for a minute. That means that even after breaking in, most writers are not able to sustain it into a lifelong career. For whatever reason—ego, being unable to deliver the goods, you’re no longer flavor of the week, whatever, eventually people stop hiring you. The career lull hits, and the writer then has to try to reinvent himself. This is where the desperation often sets in, as your mortgage company generally does not understand that you’re having an off-year. This can also be very, very hard on relationships. There’s a reason why marriages last an average of 1-2 weeks in Hollywood. The savvy writer will have invested well while riding high—perhaps bought some income property or a business—that will help sustain them. But… we’re writers, and most of us don’t think that way. We just assume once the gravy train leaves the station, we’re set for life. BZZZZ. Wrong. The truth of the matter is, a very, very few working screenwriters are able to turn a deal or even three into a career.

And so all this knowledge of the realities of the screenwriter’s life weighs heavily on my mind when I look at Alexandra and witness what may be her inevitable evolution into a writer. And I think, “Uh… make a movie? Hey, how about we sign you up for scuba lessons, honey?”

Of course, when she does decide to write that screenplay, well, she’s going to have a leg up. Because daddy will do his best to make sure she avoids my many, many mistakes. She already understands that EVERY scene must have conflict. Heck, things get pretty boring at the moose house if Claude Alligator and his slavering brood don’t show up to wreck Lucy Moose’s tea party. She already understands how critical it is to self-edit your screenplay. And she sees just how exciting and satisfying it can be to create your own world and populate it with characters who do whatever you want them to. How the heck can ballet compare to that?

--Jim C.

Report from the Expo & CS Open 2006

Once again, it was another whirlwind weekend of fun and excitement. 4,000 writers descended upon the LAX Marriott & Renaissance Hotels for four days of networking, lectures, pitching, and of course, trying their luck at the CS Open.

As many of you know (since a lot of you participated!) the CS Open is the world's only live writing tournament. Every year, hundreds of writers put their writing-under-the-gun skills to the test, all vying for a chance to win that big $5,000 prize.


700 people were given 90 minutes to write an original scene, by hand, based on scene parameters I read to them. Those scenes were then evaluated by the Coverage, Ink team, with the top 10% (this year, everyone who scored a 90 or above)--moving to round 2. We also had a lot of folks trying to better their odds by enrolling in several round 1 sections--and in fact, one of our finalists watched his scores rise round by round. After writing five original scenes (and probably crippling his writing hand,) he scored that 90 and made it into round 2.

The Round 2 folks then gathered Saturday night, where they had to write yet another brand-new scene, which were then evaluated on the spot by CI. The top eleven were then notified to return to the room Sunday morning to write one last scene. CI then picked the top 3 scenes and, after running to Kinkos for copies, handed them off to staged reading expert Eddy Herch & his team of actors, who then had two hours to rehearse.


Then the real fun began--the performances. Each of the three scenes written that very morning were performed live on stage by actors at the Expo closing ceremonies. And this is where we learned just how the CS Open is really a microcosm for the filmmaking process, because in less than a day, the scene was written, edited, staged, performed, and then evaluated by an audience! And so the handwritten words on the page really came to life in the case of some of the scenes. We also witnessed firsthand how the performances of the material, moreso than the material itself, affected the way the audience voted. For example, the scene that won, Lisa Pease's excellent "Roswell That Ends Well," also had the best staging and physical comedy. The actors clumped together and entangled arms to imitate an multi-appendaged alien bartender, which had the audience rolling. But the actors' timing was also off in a few places, and that timing may have affected how well the other two scenes--Todd van Der Werff's "Where There's a Will" and Fran Ervin's "Princesses--The E! True Hollywood Story"--played.


But in the end, it was Pease who triumphed, giving a rousing, motivating speech to the crowd of 1,000 fellow writers. Like Cressandra Thibideaux, last year's winner, Pease, too, had been coming back year after year, section after section, to the CS Open. Every year she'd do a little better. Well, this year, she did 5 GRAND better. Way to go, Lisa!

After an exhausting 3-day weekend, CI folded its proverbial tent and went home to crash HARD. Did I mention just how much #$&^*!@%*#! walking we had to do, back and forth from one hotel to the other? Actually, it was just as bad at the Convention Center, but at least this year there was a BK right across the street ;) But you can bet we'll be back next year for YEAR 6, and who knows--maybe next year YOU'LL win the big bucks!

For those interested in the scene prompts, you can find them posted on www.screenwritingexpo.com. Here's the round three prompt for this year. The 11 finalists had to write their own interpretation of this:

Your PROTAGONIST is a washed-up shell of what he used to be. Formerly a star in his field, he’s now reduced to working a soul-sucking menial job. But then TWO UNUSUAL COWORKERS confess a startling secret and bring him to a special place. PROTAGONIST is presented with an opportunity to regain what he once had. The only problem is, he will have to part with the one thing he most truly cares about to make it happen. Write the scene in which your protagonist wrestles with his dilemma. You may use any other characters or settings of your choosing.


As always, it was a fabulous, exhilarating time. Congratulations to our winners Lisa Pease, Fran Ervin and Todd van Der Werff!

Onward to the Expo!

We're packing up our show and taking it on the road this weekend... off to the LAX Marriott (NOT the LA Convention Center, as my pal Lance Gilmer so helpfully pointed out... D'OH!) to yet again coordinate the CS Open Live Writing Tournament at the Screenwriting Expo. For the fifth straight year, Coverage Ink will be coordinating this event. Got 90 minutes? Want to win $5,000??? Seriously, one of the CS Open participants is going home with 5 frigging grand for writing a couple of scenes this weekend.

So if YOU want to win, buy a ticket (I think they're 8 bucks) and stop by the CS Open room at the Expo and try your luck. We'll give you a scene prompt, and then the CI team will evaluate your scene based on the following criteria: Structure, Originality, Dialogue and Style. The top 10% move to round 2, and then the top ten to round 3. Then the top 3 scenes will be performed live on stage in a staged reading at the Expo's Closing Ceremony. The audience--probably about 1,000 folks--will then vote on the winner. And since we will be using PAPER BALLOTS and not electronic voting machines, you can be sure that the scene you vote all for WILL be the one that wins... ahem.

So if you're going to be at the Expo, stop by and introduce yourself! Look forward to seeing everyone at the CS Open!

--Jim Cirile

The Ensemble Epidemic

It’s out of control, folks.

Someone asked me last week what’s the single biggest problem I see over and over with submissions to Coverage, Ink? My reply didn’t take much thought: “%#$@&*!^& ensemble scripts.”

Allow me to clarify. See, this is what happens: a writer begins a script with a good idea of the story he wants to tell. But something happens along the way. As the writer crafts the story, he explores the secondary characters—winds up giving the secondary characters a subplot. Before you know it, the secondary characters are competing for screen time with the hero. At some point, the writer realizes this. But instead of going back and fixing the problem, he rationalizes, “Well, hey, it’s an ensemble.” Next thing you know, we have four or five or more main characters, each with their own storyline, all competing for screen time. Reader disinterest is the inevitable result.

Let me make this as clear as I can: when it comes to ensembles, DON’T DO IT. There are only a small handful of these films that ever get made, and they’re generally done by auteurs such as Altman. Does Hollywood ever make them? Very, very rarely, and hardly ever do they sell as a spec.

Part of the problem is it’s such a difficult balancing act to pull off. It’s far easier to follow one protagonist’s story scene after scene, than it is to juggle a handful of major characters, any one of whom could be considered the protagonist.
I learned this, as I learn everything, the hard way. Some years back I wrote an action ensemble script on assignment. The idea was to make “The Dirty Dozen” using the top 8 low-budget action stars at the time—all together in the same movie. So I wrote “Hauser’s Renegades,” a fun, sprawling caper action/ensemble film. And it was a nightmare to write.

The problem was that Hauser was very much the hero, but all of the other parts had to be significant enough to get the other stars--all “names” in their own right--to commit. It was the balancing act from Hades. I finally pulled it off after much much, hair-pulling and rewriting. And that was an action film, with a very standard track-down-the-bad-guy A-leads-to-B-leads-to-C plot. If I was to try the same approach in, say, a dramatic script, forget it. I know that quite honestly, I could not pull it off.

You might be surprised at how many scripts CI gets in where our main note is, “Focus on the protagonist. He needs to be in every scene--and the scenes he is not in should be ABOUT him.” Following this simple advice--and pretending ensemble movies never, ever existed and are simply NOT an option to you--will go a long way towards curing the ensemble epidemic and keeping your audience invested in the hero’s journey--where it belongs.

What's the Big Idea?

An update on Writers on the Storm and a commentary on the biz in general

It’s been a month since we sent out the Writers on the Storm writing contest’s winning scripts and loglines to our list. What we’ve seen so far has been very interesting.

First of all, the process is turning out to be an ongoing one, as opposed to a “fire and forget.” I’m pretty sure that’s a good thing. There are a lot of scripts from our top ten out still there, still getting read. Just in the last week, two companies from our list finally responded and asked to read some of the scripts. Sometimes it takes these guys awhile. No problem.

As for the responses, one of our top ten, and two of our honorable mentions, have gotten meetings so far; several more will be getting some phone meetings, and more will be assuredly coming down the pike. We’re still waiting to hear back from many companies regarding our winner, Rational Panic, and we have a solid if not huge number of our top tens also getting read, which we are staying on top of, too. In short, it’s still too early to tell exactly how much of an impact our very first little contest will have--but we’re feeling pretty good about it so far!

Of course, we’ve gotten some passes, too. No big deal, since passes are a daily fact of life in Hollywood. The important thing is that even if the material is not for a particular company, hopefully the craft and the voice impress them enough to get them in the door… and by being easy-to-work-with and personable, even a pass could turn into opportunity.

One comment made by a producer/manager struck me. He read three of our top ten, and he said to me that while he liked the writing, none of them had “the big idea” he can go sell--by that, he meant something that is so obvious that it shouts to be a movie. Now I have several responses to that. The first is, that is exactly the sort of limited thinking that gives us the same warmed-over lameness we see at the theatres. Surely any of us can name a boatload of movies with a concept that some might not
consider extraordinary which have gone on to be exceptional films. “American Beauty” leaps to mind. But the second thing I think is that, sadly, he’s probably right.

This month was the 5th anniversary of my taking over the Agent’s Hot Sheet column for Creative Screenwriting magazine. And believe me, that five years has been an education and a half! I’ve really come to see just how the representatives think. And it is true, particularly when trying to sell movies to the studios, that concept is all. Producer Dan Ostroff once told me he’d rather have a script with a phenomenal idea and iffy execution than one with a so-so idea and astounding execution. Because,
you see, they can always hire a “closer”--someone like Paul Haggis or whomever, who can come in and rewrite the script. When it comes to actually selling a spec, high concept’s a big, big thing.

And so I could see that producer/manager’s point. While I believe that many of our top ten scripts would make great movies, several of them would require thought and time to market properly and, well, a lot of folks out there are resistant to making that investment in a “baby writer.”

So what’s the big idea? Well, that’s important for sure. But I believe original voices will ultimately build a career, too, and maybe even a better or more sustainable one, than if you just have the next easily pitchable high concept—“it’s 'Porky’s' in Abu Ghraib!” or whatever. So hang tight--more to come!

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!