The Exception to the Ensemble Epidemic Rule

I have a confession to make. It's not very often that I get addicted to a TV show. While I enjoy "Lost" and "Boston Legal," and a handful of others, there's been nothing that's really broken out for me from the 2006-2007 season... until "Brothers & Sisters."

This ABC dramedy portrays the huge, dysfunctional Walker family--every Walker except J.J., it seems--a well-off bunch with a recently deceased patriarch, all coming to terms with their own neuroses and crumbling relationships in the wake of dad's death. The performances are top-notch across the board--Sally Field, Rob Lowe, Rachel Griffiths, and seemingly half the cast of "Alias"--Patricia Wettig, Ron Rifkin and Balthazar Getty--not to mention the most neurotic of the clan, uber-Republican Kitty, played wonderfully by Calista Flockhart. The cast is so strong you almost forget that not a single one of these siblings looks ANYTHING like each other, and in fact Rachel Griffiths towers a good foot over Sally Field's head, her supposed mother. Whatever!

The writing is consistently amazing--dialogue full of subtext (a recent episode had cast members trading veiled yet stinging personal barbs while seemingly talking merely about wine) and emotion and humor. Another recent scene featured a cat fight between two characters that started off polite, then turned bitchy, then to physical violence, then to humor and finally to tears--all in the space of four minutes, and it WORKED. Wow. I bow in humility and respect to the writers.

And it is a true ensemble show.

Regular CI newsletter and blog readers, along with many of you who've gotten coverage from us, know how we feel in general about ensemble feature screenplays. (If you don't, please read 'The Ensemble Epidemic' HERE.) In short, next to Westerns, ensembles are probably the toughest type of spec script to get anyone interested in. The reason is that these projects, when they are made at all, and that is rarely, are generally auteur-driven, not originated as specs. And while I love Altman and "Crash" as much as the next guy, the market is not generally looking for ensemble dramas--or any dramas, since they are not rewarded at the box office. But far worse is that more often than not, an ensemble feature screenplay is indicative of an amateur writer who has not learned how to focus, how to tell a single story following a solo protagonist yet, and so the writer goes off on tangents following secondary characters like he would in a novel... the net result being the typical prodco reader loses focus on the protagonist and hurls the script into the recycle bin in about 12 pages.

So it dawns on me that I need to revise my opinion about ensembles, since I somehow overlooked one venue where they are alive and thriving -- TV. As "Brothers and Sisters," and indeed, "Lost" and "Boston Legal" and plenty of others show, television is where ensemble writing thrives.

So if you're writing a new feature spec screenplay and you find yourself thinking about taking the ensemble approach -- STOP. Do yourself a favor and make it a TV spec of your favorite hour-long drama, or make it into a pilot instead. It will be less work for you (48 pages instead of 110!)

But even better, it might even have a chance at getting set up, which your feature ensemble spec likely will not.

--Jim C.

P.S. Oh, I know "Brothers & Sisters" has won a lot of fans thanks to the plethora of beefcake on the show, too--whereas the female cast members in general are not, er, shall we say fantasy material. However the show recently added insanely gorgeous 21-year-old Emily Van Camp ("Everwood,") so us dudes have some serious eye candy, too ;) Watch "Brothers & Sisters" on free ABC-TV.

That's a Wrap!

Writers on the Storm is now closed for submissions in 2007. Many thanks to everyone who participated! It's still to early to tell the total number of entrants since many will be arriving in the mail over the rest of the week, but it looks like we're right around the same as last year--about 900 or so entrants, possibly 1,000. We'll see!

Now it's time to get reading... Are there a few masterpieces in this enormous stack? Let's find out!

--Jim Cirile

PS: Had some Google/blogger difficulty last week, which explains why the comments do not appear on the posts below... and there's no way to recover them. Thanks, blogger! But it has been fixed, so comments should appear below.

CI consults on "My Life As A Dog" sequel

Every now and then we work on something that fills us with a sense of purpose and fulfillment and, well, makes us feel like we're actually doing something cool here. CI recently helped develop "Hair of the Dog," the sequel to "My Life as a Dog" for Swedish producer Thomas Allercrantz with original writer Reidar Jönsson. “My Life as a Dog” was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director (Lasse Hallström) Oscars in 1988 and is just a fantastic, must-see piece of cinema.

Jim,

I think the analysis is excellent! It could have been my own words :o )
Please forward my thanks and best regards to BF Esq.

I think the analysis will be a very good tool to sharpen up the script, which it clearly needs. It will be very interesting to see the reaction from the authors. I will keep you informed.

I am very glad that we have opened up a link to Coverage, Ink, and looking forward to continuous contact with you in this and other projects. It's to bad that you don't have any Swedish reading readers ;o ), or do you!? In any case I will be glad to recommend your service to other Nordic producers and writers.

Jim C. replies: Thomas, we are privileged and honored to consult on the follow-up to such a wonderful movie! I can't wait to see it on the big screen. Unfortunately we don't have any Nordic readers at this time, although I did write a Viking comedy once that fairly butchered Danish in an attempt to create a faux Old Norse! Do keep us posted on the project. Best regards, Jim

LAST CHANCE TO ENTER WOTS!!!

Hey Stormies,

Portia here, your Writers on the Storm contest coordinator. Don't mean to panic anybody, but our contest is ending soon -- Sunday April 15th! No e-submissions will be accepted past 12 midnight on 4/15/07 (that's Sunday night/Monday morning). In other words, all y'all who've been scrambling to get those scripts tight enough to bounce quarters off of, well, get bouncing!

What's real interesting is that unlike last year's contest, this year we had a lot more people entering WOTS via submitting their script to Coverage, Ink for script analysis, and getting entered in the contest for free that way. In fact we've had over 200 submissions so far through CI! Of course, that's pretty smart, because those guys are getting a second chance -- you get to see what we think of your script and get our tips for correcting the things we find -- and THEN you can polish 'er up and send the script directly into the contest by the end date. Not sure, but I don't think any other contest gives you that sort of leg up.

Now of course, if any of you all send your script in for coverage this week, well, no leg up for you guys -- you'll get your analysis back after the contest end date (unless you do a rush,) which means... no chance to revise and resubmit. However, you will know much sooner than the regular WOTS contestants if you advance to the quarterfinal round or not -- since everyone who gets a 'consider with reservations' or better for script (I'll explain that further, below) is automatically advanced to the quarterfinal round. Folks who submit directly to the contest (at www.writerstorm.com) won't find out if they've made the quarterfinals until the main announcement, which I think is sometime in late May. Actually, it's May 25th, Portia -- Jim C. If you enter through CI and don't get a consider with reservations or better for script, you are eliminated. Sorry :( I know that hurts.

Now some of you all don't understand what we mean when we say 'consider for writer' or 'consider for script.' Let me explain how this works. At the end of a coverage report, your script is rated on the following scale: PASS, CONSIDER WITH RESERVATIONS, CONSIDER, STRONG CONSIDER, and RECOMMEND. And you receive this rating for both SCRIPT and for WRITER. In a nutshell, this tells you whether we think the material and the writer are 'there' yet, or if more work needs to be done -- and how much.

The vast majority of scripts are a PASS for both script and writer -- about 90%. Now this doesn't mean that we think the script stinks, or we think you can't write your way out of a Hefty Steel-Sak bag! This simply means that in its current version, we don't feel that the script is ready yet (well, it *could* stink, truth be told... but there's hope for us all with gentle, proper guidance!) And a PASS for writer doesn't necessarily mean you can't write worth a damn; it just means that your craft isn't quite at the level it needs to be -- yet. Heck, none of us start out as Susannah Grant or Frank Darabont -- there's a long, often painful (especially in my case) learning process involved; only over time and after much practice do most of us learn how to bring our 'A' game to the page.

CONSIDER WITH RESERVATIONS, or better, for script, means that we think your script is in pretty good shape, but could still use a bit of work. But it's a bit closer to the target. CONSIDER means, Damn! Nice job! This thing could get peoples' attention! Although even 'considers' often need some fine-tuning. Lastly, there STRONG CONSIDER, which is like saying, whoa, drop everything, this script is awesome! As for RECOMMEND, as JC points out in an article on the CI site, they are super rare. I've been reading scripts in this town for 3 different production companies for six years, and I have given out exactly one recommend!

You need to understand that when a reader gives a script a 'recommend,' she's pretty much pushing the red button. It means my boss is canceling his lunch plans to read the supposed masterpiece. Guess what happens if my boss doesn't agree with my opinion? I am toast. No, worse -- I am frybread. I am stomped-upon saltines. You get the idea. That's why even if a reader loves a script, she'll often hedge her bets and give it a 'consider' -- just in case others don't feel as strongly about it!

Now some people wonder, how come I got a 'consider with reservations' for writer, but a 'pass for script'? Well, that just means the reader thought you're displaying some good writing chops on the page, but the script isn't ready to rock and roll yet. And if you get a 'consider' for script but a 'pass' for writer? That translates to, fantastic idea for a movie, but the execution is not living up to the promise of the premise. You gotta work on your craft.

If any of you guys are still confused about all this, shoot me an e-mail and I will try to make it all make sense...

This leads me to the fun part: announcing our quarterfinalists to date! As of 4/7/07, the 2007 Writers on the Storm quarterfinalists (remember, these are folks who entered the contest through Coverage Ink) are as follows, in no particular order. And as always, I remind everyone we show NO favoritism to anyone who enters the contest via submission to Coverage, Ink - in fact, it's two different staffs of readers.

1) Devils’ Wheel by Chris Blanchet
2) Alone by Tracey Thomas
3) Assisted Living by Marc LaBelle
4) Pretending to be American by Peter Yesley
5) Dogs of War by Nick Gregory
6) Lovelocked by Wehrner Ovalle
7) Lowlifes by Brian Buccellato
8) Ariadne’s Thread by Steve Callen
9) Resurrecting Angel by Leslie Flannery
10) How the Hell Did I Get Here? by Arie Kaplan
11) Night of Reflection by Chris Cambria
12) Xs and O’Briens by George Krubski
13) Jackson Hole by Don Balch
14) Sanctuary by Chris Cobb
15) Buried Secrets by Carlos Calvo
16) Grave Consequences by Curt Burdick & Scott Burdick
17) Lions by Dave Hackett
18) Ritornare by Mark Porro
19) Middle Man by Jay Curcuru
20) Mortal Coil by Andrew Steven Harris
21) Virgin Marie by Krista Zumbrink
22) Kung Fu Movie 3 by JD Hoang

That's it, y'all! Remember to get those scripts into us by midnight Sunday 4/15 at www.writerstorm.com. One of you could be struttin' proud real soon!

Love to all,

Portia Jefferson

Interview with WOTS finalist Ned Beedie

Our friend Frederick Mensch from www.moviebytes.com, the number one go-to resource for screenplay contests, recently did an interview with 2006 Writers on the Storm Top 3 finalist Ned Beedie. We thought we'd post it here, too. Congrats on the publicity, Ned! You deserve it!

MovieBytes Interview: Screenwriter Ned Beedie
=================================================================
An interview with screenwriter Ned Beedie regarding the Century City Writing Competition.
Q: What's the title of the script you entered in this contest, and what's it about?

A: The Dollmaker.

The logline is: Mike Broyles is a recently disgraced reporter -- think Jayson Blair from the NY Times. He returns to his hometown to rethink his life when the body of a missing 8 year-old boy turns up hanging from a tree.
Mike begins to uncover evidence that links this killing to a series of unsolved murders from fifteen years ago -- the Dollmaker killings.

Of course, with his credibility shot, no one believes Mike. That is, except for the murderer himself, who now knows that somebody is on to him. Mike has a chance on a story that could redeem his life and career -- if he lives long enough to write it.

Q: What made you enter this particular contest? Have you entered any other contests with this script? If so, how did you do?

A: I enter any and all contests that I can. I figure the more exposure, the better.

Yes, I have. -Semi-finalist in the Writer's Network Competition
-1st Place Winner in the Century City Screenwriting Competition
-2nd Runner Up in Writers on the Storm Competition -1 of 40
scripts selected for the fall '06 IFP Market, NYC -Semifinalist
in the Screenwriting Expo Contest -Honorable mention for the
IndieProducer.Com Screenwriting Competition -Semifinalist in
American Accolades Competition -Quarterfinalist in American
Screenwriting Competition -First Round Placement in 20/20
Competition -Quarterfinalist in Page Screenplay Competition

Q: Were you satisfied with the adminstration of the contest? Did they meet their deadlines? Did you receive all the awards that were promised?

A: I was very satisfied with all the contests I entered except one. I had an extremely bad encounter with the administrator of that particular competition and would never recommend it to anyone. Otherwise, all went very well. I received everything promised and got many meetings and readings from them.

Q: Were you given any feedback on your script? If so, did you find the feedback helpful?

A: I've been given a TON of feedback on the script. I have a completely new draft that tries to take many of these notes into account. I've only had a few people read this new version so it's still untested. I don't know if it works or if too many cooks in the kitchen undid what I was trying to achieve.

Q: Has your success in this contest helped you market your script? Were you contacted by any agents, managers or producers?

A: Yes, it has helped market it. I've been approached by all three but yet to sign with anyone, much to my frustration.

Q: What's your background? Have you written any other screenplays or television scripts?

A: I have a Master's Degree in Screenwriting from the American Film Institute. I have written other screenplays, optioned two and am working in the industry full time on various projects...though am ready to take my game up a notch or two.

Q: Do you live in Los Angeles? If not, do you have any plans to move there?

A: Yes, I don't think you can truly succeed in this business unless you do. So much of it is about bumping into people at the gym or Starbucks, or knowing a friend who has a sister who's an agent and volunteers to pass along your script. Obviously,
writing and the material matter. But, unfortunately, that can only take you so far and it's the relationships you build that sustain you.

Q: What's next? Are you working on a new script?

A: I'm currently working on two new scripts. I have a website:
www.NedJamesBeedie.com that describes best what I'm doing, who I am and where I'm going. Thanks!

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!