Screenwriting : Best Case Scenarios That Aren't by Kenneth Michael Daniels

Hi, Kenneth Michael Daniels. I think it's best for screenwriters to focus on telling the best, most marketable stories, but there's so much competition that screenwriters should do everything they can to make their scripts shine/stand out, which includes making sure the formatting is done well.

I suppose. Seems that the Hollywood studios and their readers go about making movies the same way the MLB teams used to go about fielding teams as detailed in Moneyball though, and so here we are.

I mean, yeah, that's how it should be. All the obsessive formatting and perfection stuff comes from within screenwriting communities, not the industry. Producers see scripts as organic, something they can adapt to their needs. A spec screenplay just needs to look like a screenplay and there's quite a bit of leeway in terms of stylist choices.

A lot of aspiring screenwriters desperately want rules and constraints. The freedom of art terrifies them.

CJ Walley

Agreed.

However, what of the notes commonly given by readers through script competitions? Much of it revolves around the execution and not how to improve the story so much as how to tweak the words on the page, which is to completely miss the point of why we make these things to begin with.

I get you want to put your best foot forward, but I’m to the point where I think the script should almost be an afterthought in actual development unless one is self-producing. If story matters above all else, I would think a synopsis of a minimum of two pages and maximum of five pages, which summarizes the characters, the plot, the desired tone, and the freaking “why” of the thing, would make the whole evaluation and development process more sensible.

This way creatives (to include non-writers) could take a quantity over quality approach and bang out lots of ideas, and readers could fly through these things without missing good opportunities because the writer is less skilled than the concept is good. (In my line of work, there is a clear distinction between strategy and execution. It’s rare for most individuals to be equally good at these, so folks specialize to good effect as it maximizes the outcome’s chance for excellence.)

This way you make evaluation about the likelihood of an idea being the foundation for a profitable, interesting film and quit putting the cart before the horse. Then, when the time comes, like they do in an ad agency creative department, you create a team of at least "the creative one” and someone who has the skill to get it on paper effectively. An obvious WIN/WIN in my opinion.

Do whatever you want with your money and Time but when you start asking strangers who make movies for a living for help, you will understand why things are done in a way to be efficient, with money & time.

lots of ppl complain about Hollywood this and that- and majority cant even produce a wedding video, or have zero hands on experience. Just a bunch of theorists.

Go work on someone else's indie film first. Get your hands dirty.

Dan MaxXx Your post relates to execution. My beef has nothing to do with the making of the content but the process by which it is decided which projects get greenlit.

(BTW, there are a number of assumptions I would've expected you to know better than to make embedded in your response. I obviously don't owe anyone an explanation, and I hesitate to bring it up as I'm sure to be labeled as defensive for saying something, but really I'm merely suggesting you be both more courteous and more professional when addressing member of this community, or at least don't presume to know how much they do or don't know relative to you. I know I would appreciate it.)

Seems seam to disappear when screenwriters cojoin with studio-hired technicians.

DT Houston You are right about everything which you are right about, and wrong about the rest. And unless you've lived in the future already, you have no more of an idea what will, or won't, happen in any regard.

Read the book The Drunkard's Walk, which goes into great detail about the system of how studios make their slates. Then read some headlines about an industry in contraction, and dig into how California is trying to use tax credits to stop the bleeding. Then look up a guy named Donald L. Shaw (a journalism professor of mine) and read his piece, "The Rise and Fall of American Mass Media: The Role of Technology and Leadership" to see this is nothing new, and further that the reaction being exhibited here is not only predictable, but well precedented.

Of course you won't do any of those things, as you are surely confident in your knowledge that what you currently think is correct, and so you need not bother considering other viewpoints, for if they weren't mistaken they would be yours already, whether they are just as fully formed and well conceived as any of the ones you use as a foundational premise of your take on it, and regardless of the fact you have considered them for all of two minutes, concepts which I have reflected upon for more than 10 years at this point.

Whatever. You do you, I'll do me, and we'll see if this vaunted system miraculously starts producing worthwhile Art in the proportion it did in the 70's instead of 14 sequels to movies made about a cartoon which was made to sell toys. Or storybooks about guys with superpowers fighting off bad guy aliens. I'll meanwhile watch films by people who more or less operate well outside of your glorified Old Boys' Club, you know the same ones you would point to as proof that the death of the Artform has been greatly exaggerated. And perhaps the Emperor does have clothes on, and maybe people really do lose to the Yankees because they have Mickey Mantle and not because they are caught up staring at the pinstripes, and Moneyball was a fairy tale and Hollywood has got it figured out and everything is as efficient as it possibly could be.

DT Houston We disagree, therefore there is no point to being here? Sounds good.

A little unsolicited free advice for you to ignore: consider watching the movies you seem to think of as commodities/products and concern yourself more with what is being investigated by their writers, solving problems and improving situations, and less time defending a broken system.

PS - We both know you will be the exact same person having read this post/thread as you were before, which is interesting considering how I'm sure you believe characters must have an arc and develop personally in a proper script, something which you apparently believe is just for the people in the movies.

Kenneth Michael Daniels your posts say you know more than current employed show biz ppl. So show us. Reinvent corporate submissions & development. Good Luck, and I mean that 100% .

If by asserting that I "say you know more than current employed show biz ppl" you mean that I believe I know more than every single person who makes movies, then no, I make no such claim. You come closer to that than me, quite actually since you seem to think the value of one's opinion is predicated on their career path or credentials rather than the validity of what they are suggesting. But no matter, one can be offended by perceived rudeness irrespective of the dismissive, arrogant, and know-better speaker's intentions.

What I set out to say is that the current system is antiquated, and if it were ever a particularly efficient process for identifying superior quality material (it wasn't), then it certainly isn't anymore. This is evidenced by researching how groundbreaking films have gotten made. (Doing exactly that happens to be a hobby of mine, not that you could know that or appreciate its relevance here.) But, alas, just because the writing is on the wall doesn't mean that people either can or will bother reading it.

In any event, my suggestion is but one of many possible modifications to script evaluation. I can't judge your suggestion, as you haven't made the effort to contribute one. I'm sure it is much better than mine. But maybe you think there is no room for improvement whatsoever. I have a hard time believing that, but then again the term "obstructionism" was coined, and the status quo is a real thing, notoriously and fiercely defended in certain quarters, so perhaps that is the case.

I am glad to have both your permission and support to live my own life. Thanks for that. I will leave you with the sage wisdom of Mr. Nelson Mandela: "It's always seems impossible until it's done." (Between us, I personally prefer the more spirited saying, "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." But that's just me., and you seem willing to get out of the way already, which is kind of you.)

Kenneth Michael Daniels Yes, it would be good if writers could get feedback on a treatment first. Whenever I have an assignment, I put together a development notes document that outlines everything and makes sure we all have our ducks in a row.

However, for writers working on specs, they really have the moxie to go with their gut. No writer expecting to be paid to write should be out paying for feedback, and for writers who have their craft skills developed, all feedback is pretty much a distraction unless it's from someone who wants to see the movie made.

Something I do encourage is for writers to have synopses for all their scripts. I feel it's essential.

For what it's worth, I once got an offer of funding off the back of a two page treatment I sent out for a concept I'd thought of.

With so many options for screenwriting software out there, formatting issues shouldn't even be a problem. It's not possible to throw out all formatting principles except for 1 page = 1 minute because it's the format of that page that makes it that way.

Yes, scripts that get sold are going to be rewritten for many different reasons. Maybe they want to change the location the story takes place in, maybe they feel like there's a character they want to add or take out. And it's not just studios, a director can just as easily decide that they want to make changes to fit the vision they have for the film as well.

I think it's vital that writers focus on the story they want to tell because it's all about getting the reader to see it in their mind and get excited about it as well. The story is what we are really selling. But if there is no formatting to it then you're really just offering them a book and yes, books get optioned for their rights all the time but then they have to hire a screenwriter to convert it to an actual script.

There's also the issue that the chances of actually selling a spec script are very minimal, especially to the major studies which it sounds like you are tilting at, they are mostly used to showcase the writer's ability and voice. Productions companies buy up rights to IP, come up with ideas and story concepts that they believe will make them money and then they go shopping for a screenwriter that they believe best fits that project.

From what I’ve heard (though I could be wrong), judges in screenwriting competitions are pretty strict since they’re picking a winner. But if you send your script to a manager, they’re more likely to look at its potential and not sweat the small stuff.

Smart industry members are just looking for good material. When it comes to things like formatting, the amateur world and professional world are pretty much at odds. Sadly, that can of worms was opened long ago and we're down the rabbit hole now.

The answer to any situation is that the story is presented in the way that's most easily consumed for that specific industry member at that specific time, in context to their relationship with the writer. In an elevator, that's probably a logline. In an email, that's probably a synopsis. Over lunch, that's probaby a pitch. During a flight, it's probably a script.

Savvy screenwriters have multiple ways to communicate what they are offering and know how to best leverage someone's time.

When I was on set in Sept, someone came up to me and said "Hey, Jane Doe says she wants to do a modern day western", and I quickly rattled off a title and concept I have been noodling with for some time now. It was short, sharp, and compelling and went straight back into a text message. I didn't ask for an email address to send a finished script to one day. I didn't give a lengthy pitch. I gave enough to suggest I had something exciting there and was ready to go. You have to roll with the punches.

There's a lot of naval gazing and preening that goes on in the amateur world. Writers polishing drafts endlessly when they could be developing something new. Writers unable to bang out a quick synopsis for something because they don't know what they're writing until it's finished. That's probably holding most people back a lot more than the minuscule discrepancies over formatting.