Screenwriting : Location of my story by Debbie Castanha

A. Not that I can see if it's not nec. B. instead of the actual location, I'd focus on story'world' and storycraft. Well-written, well-told stories broaden possibilities :)

Agree with both before me. Don't tie your story into a city location unless that city location is central to your story. And some producers want scripts that can be shot in a specific place, usually because they have the means and accessibility there. If that scenario presented itself to you, then you alter your generic city script to that place. I'd stay generic unless my story was dependent on that location for thematic or other purposes.

Well, I'd say give the city a name or choose something. I have a script that takes place in a 'Midwest small town' and my mentor at the time I was writing it, a former V.P. of Development at United Artists, told me to give it a name because it helps with believability, makes it seem more "real." It simply helps to tell the story. Plus, it gives an opportunity to add a little flavor or nuance to the tone or setting. :)

Sure, they'll film wherever it works best for production. But the setting of the story can certainly remain. Write what is relevant to the story, the tone, the atmosphere you wish to create. That's what you should be concerned about. You can't control filming unless you are the producer. For example, most everything set in "Seattle" is filmed in Vancouver, Canada.

Thanks, all, for the feedback. I realize [if I were lucky enough that my screenplay were to be filmed] they'll film wherever they want/ is cheaper, etc. But, say I set the story in my hometown of Santa Barbara rather than 'Anytown USA', well, then I might have a scene wherein two characters interact while sailing, or wine tasting, or walking on the beach, right? And, while sailing is not central to my story whatsoever, it is a perfectly natural activity that two people might do, and at the same time, it can provide an interesting/ beautiful scenic backdrop [obviously which I would have to write into the story.] So while specifying the city and/or naming it aren't required, would you agree that, as the writer, we should include any setting (pier, winery, beach) we like MERELY because we feel it adds visual stimulation, and not because it is necessarily central to the story?

Debbie - sure you can have any of those generic settings that you want, and I hope you find a buyer who likes it as is. But if someone wants to buy your script, and says, "Debbie...we're gonna shoot it in Dingyville, and need you to change the pier, winery and beach scenes to a laundromat, a greasy-spoon diner, and a second-hand clothing store, because that's what we have available to us"....after getting up off of the floor and splashing cold water on your face, what do you think you would you do?

I know that publishers prefer novels set in major cities, places of interest to a lot of readers, New York, Paris, what have you. It might be the same with film studios. "Which setting will provide the most interesting backdrop?" might be a good question to ask. Or the one providing the best atmosphere or mood?

Bill, when they buy my script and they ask for those setting changes, I'd sit down and write it faster than Superman saving Lois Lane from runs in her pantyhose : ) .... especially since they aren't necessary to the story. Now, if the sailing scene was intricate to the plot or a character (if he/she was a sailor, for instance), I imagine I'd scratch my head before explaining why that would be a mistake. Again, I could write the [similar] scenes in laundromat --because the setting isn't necessarily central to the story. So, if it's all the same for purposes of forwarding my story (laudromat vs. winery), is there any reason I shouldn't pick the one that is more visually pleasing and interesting--at least, to me?

Debbie - I'd say go with your heart and head, like you did. Hopefully you'll get your deal and won't have to change a thing. Fingers are crossed for you!

I am going to get flack from my fellow "Happy Writers" for this. And there have been some valid, pragmatic reasons for why it is important or not important to pick a city. But they always say write WHAT you know. This can be extended to write WHERE you also know. I know New York City. And that's what I write about. Period.

Exactly, what Dan said. But do paint something, even if it is subtle. Why waste an opportunity to add nuance to your story even if it is small. :) I assume we're talking about a spec script?? If so, your focus should be on crafting the story and executing it in the best way that you can. Your job at this point is to entice your reader, pull them into your story world using everything that is available to you. If your script is optioned or purchased and goes further, perhaps into development, then those issues or concerns would be ironed out at that point. To me, this concern is perhaps 'putting the cart before the horse.' Lol!

Dan - you said it.

Just for fun, an example of creating a name for a location to support a theme: In "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" the story is set in a "sleepy midwestern town," which could be anywhere in the Midwest and thus filmed anywhere. But, the author created the fictitious town, "Endora, Iowa," for the story. "Endora" of course hints at "endure" which is what Gilbert has been doing all his life. It's an underlining theme. Gilbert fears he'll never leave this little town and his family obligations. He'll always be trapped there and will have to endure. "Endora" is a wonderful little nuance simply there to support the story. :)

Here's another POV: Dan and other writers on this thread are IN THE business. They have freedoms we don't. As rookies we have to be magnificent to break in. And storyworlds are a strong component of the story like a lead actor. Storyworlds sell movies - not locations. Make sure locations fit the storyworld, and you'll be fine :) Good luck with your writing!

Debbie - just to echo Steven's point, if you are writing a story about heroin dealers, like King of New York or French Connection....or psychos, like The King of Comedy, After Hours, or American Psycho...or greed, like Wolf of Wall Street....or police corruption, like Serpico....then by all means, use New York City as your backdrop. Heroin dealers...psychos...greed....corrupt cops - if they can make it there, they'll make it anywhere! Just kidding, Steven. We all know the good New York movies. Don't go throwing any stale bagels at me!

Bebbie, every scene, prop, detail, word and especially location must have a purpose to the story - as God, you put him/her or it there for a purpose. A place - does your character work there, visiting a friend, favorite childhood place, place of important event like first kiss, or place he/she hates to be and etc?

Hey Debbie. I just took Max Adam's St32 webinar on writing dynamic scenes and I highly recommend it. Yes, give your location a firm time and place. Your location must be visualized by the reader, and giving it that name (Santa Barbara in your case) will help the reader feel like they're there. Hell, I'm a Canadian and when you say Santa Barbara I immediately envision all the things you want. Describing your character's actions IN a certain place makes your script visual, and your script must be visual. Sure, after purchase, there's a great chance the whole thing will get re-written to suit other director-picked locations, BUT you must grab them with a visual script in order to sell it - so pick your locations with deeply thought-out intent and WORK them. If your script is so hot they don't want to change a thing...you make more money! So write powerfully, don't leave anything up to the reader.

I'm sure plenty of good advice precedes me. Speaking specifically to the original question, "Is there any reason that I shouldn't place my screenplay in a city of my choice EVEN though it is not central to the story?" Yes. If that city is prohibitive due to the implied costs, safety, or physical production requirements. For example, Caracas is statistically one of the most dangerous cities in the world. If it's not central to your story, I'd advise you not to choose that city because it could read as prohibitive. The negative impact on the reader may outweigh the positive impact. If it's not central to the story, then choose another city that is less prohibitive.

Dangerous/ prohibitively expensive, yes, great point, Regina.

I didn't specify a city for my serial killer thriller. I was inspired by SE7EN, wherein I think the lack of specificity about location actually added to the horror. I think it depends on the project. I grew up in Vancouver, and they filmed JASON TAKES MANHATTAN there. I kid you not. It's about what fuels the world of your script on the page.

Please always feel free to disagree! All good. If as the OP says the "city is not central to the story," I argue that some cities can be regarded as prohibitive and can negatively impact the read. Why risk that in a situation in which the location has no significant story value? On the other hand, if the location is central to the story or has significant story value, then of course use the city you need for your story, no matter what the physical production implications. It's true that in my example, you could shoot another city for Caracas, but you're still asking your reader to factor in additional expense - in a situation in which the city holds no significant story value. You're not getting much value in exchange for expense. The key here is that the post is asking about a situation in which the city does not add significant story value. She is not asking about a situation in which the setting adds story value. I also agree that in most cases, it won't matter and won't be viewed as prohibitive.

Peter, your examples of Black Hawk Down, etc. are all examples in which the location adds story value. The original question is the opposite. She states that her city is not central to the story. That's why I answered the way I did.

Peter, yes, I think we're looking at the question differently. In fact, I'd bet you $10 that if the original question was phrased differently, you and I would be arguing the exact same way! I didn't jump into this thread for days because I agree with you regarding the "big picture" - the city is typically not a game changer at all. In fact, when I was considering whether or not to jump into the thread, my initial thought about how to respond was this: I'm looking at 2 DVDs on my shelf. 1) ERIN BROCKOVICH - all the cities have specific value. Polluter PG&E was in a specific location in Hinckley, CA. 2) Next to my "E" DVDs are my "Fs" - FINAL DESTINATION - the cities have no specific value, so place it wherever you wish. IF the city has NO story value, then IMO, don't chose a "difficult location" that will create a risk of negative shading attached to the reading experience. The OP asked, "Is there ANY reason...?" Yes. Typing this all out, I guess another point (one that I'm sure earlier posts have mentioned) is WHY there is no story value attached to the OP's location. There probably should be. Even if she's chosen ANYTOWN, USA, there should be a reason why. Again, the OP stated, "Is, 'I just want it to be in XX' a good enough reason,'" so I was trying to write to her question.

Peter, I 100% agree with what you've just posted, and the long or short tenure of your experience doesn't matter - because you are RIGHT. However, I'm framing my replies around how DEBBIE phrased her original question. :-)

While there's some excellent points made throughout this thread, I feel there's a few axioms that are drowning out some critical practical concerns related to readers. I have an example I'd like to to cite, plus there's a big question we have to ask ourselves here, which I'll get onto in a minute. Firstly, we've spoken about writer distraction in another valuable thread, and here, Regina addresses the issue of reader distraction - which should never be underestimated. We have to remember that specifics may add colour to a story but they also exclude all other possibilities by default. We focus on the 1% at the potential expense of the 99%, and it's a much bigger gamble than this thread makes out, particularly for amateur writers. You hit a studio reader with EXT. CAPITOL HILL STEPS - MORNING on your front page and klaxons are going to start going off in their head, and may not go silent. It's all very well saying a good story will surpass location restrictions, but a reader has to get to that good story first. Let's not forget that some readers, many readers, seem to go into a script looking for what's wrong. Would you open a pitch to an exec like that? We should never, ever, fall into the trap of thinking our story will absolve our failings by default. Secondly, the distraction works two ways, and comes back the other thread I mentioned. It's very easy to open up Google Maps and start playing location scout - hell, it's a lot of fun, it's the closest some of us get to going outdoors! But it's all too easily an indulgence that consumes our precious energy at the cost of focusing on story. What makes a scene good to watch is the dynamic at play behind the characters, not how chic, spectacular, cooky, or romantic the restaurant that's carefully chosen. When I wrote my first screenplay, I was obsessed with location. I wrote a post apocalyptic action movie (mostly car chases) set in the California badlands near the Salton Sea. I chose that area because it's little known that LA sits upon sizable oil reserves which gave my story a political dynamic and I figured a movie set in the desert could be shot anywhere at lower cost, such as Spain. I went super intense, knowing every dirt road that could be used. The story all made technical sense. As I was naive at the time, I uploaded it to The BlackList and bought some reviews. Two were very positive (got spotlighted) but one trashed it - almost entirely because of the location. The reader was clearly sick and tired of post apocalyptic movies set in LA and just kept labouring this point, despite the fact LA got little more than a few references in the opening scenes. What's interesting is they also get the whole tone and time setting of the movie wrong, suggesting those open scenes completely distracted them and set them off down the wrong path. I should have just said desert, saved myself a ton of time, and completely negated that vulnerability. Anyway, back to that big question. If the consensus in this thread and outside of it is that specific locations should only be used if absolutely essential to the story, doesn't that logic mean that any reader who reads a script specifying a location is right to assume that location is essential and, if they see it as a production limitation, write the script off accordingly? I think it may. TL;DR: Believing we have a good story may not be good enough. Beware personal distraction. Consider reader distraction.

Wow, great post, CJ, and thank you for sharing the "Salton Sea" personal example! I'm going to add a few comments. I hope they aren't confusing after CJ's post, which I believe is completely clarifying. From CJ: "What's interesting is they also get the whole tone and time setting of the movie wrong, suggesting those open scenes completely distracted them and set them off down the wrong path. I should have just said desert, saved myself a ton of time, and completely negated that vulnerability." -Here I'm focusing on CJ's phrase "suggesting those open scenes completely distracted them." -One important thing to add. I'm being reductive, so please forgive the concise description. For "Hollywood" readers, we give your first pages the highest level of our attention. They're the litmus test. If the opening feels viable, you get a lot of benefit of the doubt. If the opening did not feel viable, you have lost a ton of our optimism. Both affect the rest of the read. -In fact, at the request of former S32 Education Director Shannon, I taught a class on S32 about script openings. -For low priority scripts (e.g. writing samples), if we like page 1, we will read page 2. If we like page 5, we will read page 6. Maybe we get to page 10 or even to page 30. If we don't find the openings to indicate a viable script, ideally, we may ask an intern to cover the script so we don't have to read it ourselves. If the coverage is good, then we can pick up the script again. If the coverage is not good, well, you know what happens right? -So yes, the opening dictates the entire read and how your script is treated. Topic 2: I'm scared to even bring this up, as I don't want to confuse the issue. If you "search the Lounge," you will see that both CJ and I feel it's typically OK to put well-known songs into appropriate scripts. (I believe I'm accurately representing CJ's view.) I think a judicious use of 1 (maybe 2) songs can add to the reading experience. Key word: judicious. I'm not saying you should be the Music Supervisor. I believe CJ used the great example of "Rocky Mountain High" in FINAL DESTINATION. Why is this OK? Because a song is in one discrete place in the script. It simply suggests a tone/feeling/irony in that scene, and it really can be swapped out with another song or with an original composition. Whereas, the city can pervade the entire script. The point is that when you add an element that pervades the entire script, you have to treat it differently than when adding an element that impacts only one moment. An element that pervades the entire script can have a global implication. (Btw, I would say that less than 5% of scripts I recall have a specific song title dropped in, so again - judicious.) Topic 3: It's nearly impossible to give a blanket answer that satisfies all situations. Like Peter Fleming said, Black Hawk Down is and should be location-specific. Some stories aren't. Some cities/locations have a stigma/challenge/over-familiarity attached to them, others don't. How often does a city affect my read? Your read? It depends on the situation! :-)

At the end of the day, everything is relative (as usual). If CJ's script would have found a producer who wanted to shoot a post-apocalyptic film based in the Salton Sea area, then CJ's script would have had a chance with that producer. I could see how some people would have made the comments that they made to him on blacklist, too. Answering CJ's question. Yes, we should expect it to be written off accordingly. We are suppliers of a demand, and if someone demands something other than what we supply - "bye-bye, supplier...your script does not meet my demand." And that goes either way: whether a producer needs a site-specific script, or whether a producer needs a generic-site script. My answer correlates to the "Banker's Box Theory of Selling Scripts." Some producers have very set reasons on why they want a script based in a specific setting/location. Some don't. One producer at a major studio told me once "I need an action script set in Chicago," which I unfortunately didn't have, and I already had a good relationship with him. It's always nice to be able to pull a script out of your Banker's Box of Scripts and say, "hey...I got exactly what you're looking for!" The key takeaway is this: most producers already know what they are looking for, and if you're lucky enough/smart enough/close enough with one/some/many and can find out exactly what they're looking for...well...you're farther ahead in the game than those writers who don't know exactly what they're looking for. And some producers are of course kinda open to anything that is good; that they like; and that they think could be a good ROI. You can see on Inktip how many producers are seeking scripts in specific locations, and how many aren't. That's probably the best barometer for us on this topic. I think it's about 1 in 3 that already have a specific location request. Reasons for that are probably more practical-based than anything else. They might have film credits there. They might have access to crew and cast there. They might have access to locations there. They might have some great visual ideas for there, etc. etc. As writers, we have to fill needs that go beyond our own ideas and notions. We're serving them, and they're not serving us. And if we're lucky enough to have already written a site-specific script that somebody needs and wants, that's great. It's always a crap-shoot in writing a site-specific script, but isn't writing any type of spec script always a crap-shoot? Good luck, shooters - and stay off the Hard Eight, that one's already been written by Paul Thomas Anderson. And Debbie....I'm certainly not saying you're wrong for the Santa Barbara settings: that's your choice and ultimate gamble. Everything is always relative. Good luck with that script, Debbie.