Didn't Make the Semis? I'm So Outta Here!!!!

The problem is, once they invest in a character, they want to see a Victory.

Let's take Star Wars as an example. Luke is stuck on a desert planet with two sons. All of his friends have gone off to college. then his Aunt and Uncle are burned alive and their corpses left out in the open.

What IF... Luke had failed, and allowed the Death Star to destroy the Rebel Alliance? George Lucas had to find a way, however implausible, for a Victory.

He came up with... the Force. So generic, no one can really object to it. The Force allows Luke to deliver a bomb that blows up the Death Star. Total victory.

That's what the audience expects. If you mess with their expectations, they won't like it.

Structure the story so your Protagonist, the character we're invested in, displays a flash of genius. Not easy to do. But you're looking for an Award, right? An Award for cracking this script, plot-wise? Remember "The Sixth Sense.' Even though Bruce Willis lost everything, he still had the Victory of rescuing a kid from being afraid of all the Dead People.

So true. But.

But I watched "The Fighter" last night and I was so bored because it was soooooooooooo formulaic. We knew every twist and turn and the entire ending. Why William would I want to do that to my audience?

Reply to: Why William would I want to do that to my audience?

The audience wants a sense of Victory.

One of the tricks... is giving them the Victory that then never expected.

ie, when we discover why Bruce Willis was unable to connect with this wife.

In screenwriting books, they often say, "The ending should take the audience by surprise. But when they look back, they should realize it was inevitable, the ending that solved all the problems."

Don't dismiss the iron Clad Rule because some films have done it badly.

The audience wants to INVEST in the Protagonist. To pull us into the film, so the struggle becomes ours. Trying to get into a lifeboat on the Titanic.

On "Ebert Presents," Iganity said a film was "marinating in its own mediocrity." Lots of films are ordinary and bad. Finding a way for the hero to Triumph that was unpredictable, that made us gasp... like when Jack Dawson slides into the icy Atlantic and disappears.... but after jack dies, we have a dream sequence where Old Rose gets to return to Titanic and be reunited with her True Love.

Let me put it another way:

Figure out a way for the audience to leave with a sense of Victory.

then, compare that version to the one you have now.

Until you've worked out the alternative, you can't make a valid decision between the two.

There's a site called Metacritic that gives a numerical score to all the reviews a movie recieves. There are so many movies that fail, fail miserably. Many of them cost the studio over $100 million. The goal isn't to make an ego product or a glorious failure. The goal is to write a successful movie for Warner Bros. that will earn ten times its cost, so the profits will finance several other movies.

The way to do that... is by creating characters we care about. If we learn at the end that our favorite character only existed in a dream,... it just doesn't work.

No way William.

I disagree. I don't think every movie must follow that doctrine. I will say that most movies yes follow that. But there are theatergoers out there who are just like me. You wouldn't believe how many times I've whispered to my girlfriend during a movie: "I hope this doesn't have the boring happy ending."

It's a French-movie thing, William. (I'll stop you right here and save you the trouble of posting your "Yes, but this is America and that's not the sort of thing that plays well here" motif.

Look at the cult classic BRAZIL. Perfect "rug-pulled-out-from-William's-Victory-paradigm" movie.

The viewer can taste the Victory on its way, in ever-increasing bites with larger and larger forkfuls.

Then, what do screenwriters Terry Gilliam, Charles McKeown, and Tom Stoppard do?

They pull the Victory Rug out with a violent tug.

Such a creepy, dark ending. I loved it when I saw it for the first time.

All I'm saying is, there are great non-Victory movies out there. And most importantly, there is an audience for it. After all, who can blame this erudite audience. We realize that not every story has a happy ending and we actually feel hoodwinked if there is one where one shouldn't logically be.

Everyone here at AS can chime in, if they wanted, with their favorite Victory-less movie endings.

First, if you try to please everyone you'll end up pleasing nobody...

TWELVE MONKEYS
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
MILLION DOLLAR BABY...

So true Angus.

Too many writers here wrongly assume that only one type of movie is attractive to AS, WB and Hollywood in general.

There are several types of movies that are produced every year. Mainly because of the age-group stratification of theatergoers. (Of course, economics, age, education level, blah, blah, come into play too.)

For me, something like a super-action-packed Vin Diesel movie would bore me to death, but fans of those movies could be bored to death by FLAT PENNIES.

Which brings up an important notion: The readers at AS should be grouped according to genre likes and dislikes. It would be grossly unfair to have FLAT PENNIES judged by someone what loves only action films. Just as equally unfair, is an AS reader who loves character-driven stories judging an action film here.

It's possible that AS is already set up like that. A checks-and-balances scenario whereby a great script wouldn't slip through their fingers because of an off-genre reader. Or maybe I'm wrong.

I thought your complaint was, Why didn't my script make the Semi-finals?

The title is, "I'm outta here."

Just thought I would explain why your script didn't make the cut.

A reader gave your script a numerical score. Some of the scores for scripts read the first month were a bit high, and those scripts still show up as semifinalists, even though nine or ten better revisions have been posted.

The reader gave your script a low score. Unless you change something substantial about your script, they aren't going to read it again. Too many new scripts that haven't been read.

There aren't any "GREAT non-Victory" movies out there. ET was lost on earth, found a friend, phoned home and was reunited with his mother in the final scene.

There just aren't any "great" movies without a victory at the end. The readers know that.

But.. the more important thing is, you need to get a revision read, and it needs to get a higher score. To get that, you need to change something.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest... Chief smothered McMurphy, then broke out of his prison and went FREE.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Reply to: Too many writers here wrongly assume that only one type of movie is attractive to AS, WB and Hollywood in general

Have you ever read Box Office Mojo? Sites that project box office returns for various movies?

for the FIRST movie from Amazon Studios, they are looking for a BIG GROSS. Box office.

there's lots of money out there to make movies. M. Night had three stinkers in a row, and Sony is financing his next film starring Will Smith and his son.

Actually, what they're looking for is a character-driven film. They want Indiana Jones. Captain Jack Sparrow. John McClane. James Bond. Jurassic Park.

One movie that has a character so fascinating, it will generate two sequels. There's no way anyone is going to make a sequel to your script.

Amazon is set up to allow revisions. To show the Development Process. Because amateurs don't understand how that works. They don't understand that Hollywood has a ton of experience with how much profit a movie will make..

and Family-Friendly, action-driven movies with Great Characters... the two leads of the Sound of Music... and lovable and adorable children.... are the ones that score big at the box office.

ET. Harry Potter. If you think you're going to find a WB exec who isn't looking for the next Harry Potter, you don't know the movie biz.

Maybe not a substantial change. Possibly a little tweaking for all me know, William. We just aren't privy to how close our scripts got, right?

Just like the almost 50 semifinalists today won't know just how close they got to moving to the finals.

I do have some sort of validation as to where FLAT PENNIES stands here at AS.

Steph mentioned that if your script is in the New & Notables section, an AS reader likes it.

FLAT PENNIES has been in that section for the last two months. So, I am assuming that the script is garnering traction. I also assume, and hopefully correctly, that with just a little tweaking, the script could move up to the semifinalist level. Just makes clear sense to me for some reason, William.

Yes, Chief was free. But our protag McMurphy was suffocated with a pillow after his brain was fried with electricity. Not much of a Victory for our protag there.

P.S.

Sorry, I threw you with that header. Just an old journalism head technique. Worked, didn't it? Got you here, right?

Reply to: I also assume, and hopefully correctly, that with just a little tweaking, the script could move up to the semifinalist level.

That's a fine goal. Semi-final.

the problem is, unless you make a SUBSTANTIAL rewrite, your revision won't get read.

You can't get a higher score unless you get another read.

Do you understand why AS encourages revisions? Because a writer always falls in love with his own work. Can't see the flaws.

McMurphy was suffocated after he got electroshock. And Kirk Douglas owned the rights to that novel for 20 years and cound never find a studio willing to finance it.

McMurphy was a good character, but everyone knows the movie would have earned three times as much if it had been structured properly.

Million Dollar Baby is such a great example. Wining the Best Picture at the Academy Awards will add $100 million to your Box Office Gross. Even with the Oscar, plus Clint Eastwood, plus Morgan Freeman, plus Hilary Swank, how much has it earned? Audiences stayed away in droves.

Success in the movie business... I mean, Amazon looks at the writer, too... means you don't keep beating a dead horse. Admit that it didn't work and FIX it.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Million Dollar Baby

Budget $30 million
Domestic $100,422,786
Gross revenue $216,763,646

Not bad for "Audiences stayed away in droves."

Unless you know that winning a Best Picture Oscar adds $100 million to your Domestic Gross.

Harvey Weinstein was interviewed for "King's Speech." If a picture costs $200 million, adding a hundred million to the gross isn't that important.

King's Speech cost $15 million. they thought it would earn $35 million. If it wins the Best Picture Oscar, it wins $ 135 million.

For a Best Picture Winner, starring Clint Eastwood and Hilary Swank, a domestic gross of $100 million... you really don't know much about this business, do you?

Domestic Gross
Avatar $760 million
Dark Knight $ 533 million

Dark Knight was a WB picture. That's the kind of Domestic they want.

Toy Story 3 $ 415 Domestic

Transformers 2 $ 402 Domestic

Spider-Man 3 $ 336

Iron Man $ 318

For a Clint Eastwood movie (also a WB regular) AFTER adding in the extra $100 million, to still only have $100 million total... means it earned NOTHING.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

And here we are again William.

You and I and Angus standing in the Louvre looking at a sculpture...

"It's ugly!"
"It's beautiful!"
"It's ugly!"
"It's beautiful!"
"It's ugly!"
"It's beautiful!"
"It's ugly!"
"It's beautiful!"
"It's ugly!"
"It's beautiful!"
"It's ugly!"
"It's beautiful!"
"It's ugly!"
"It's beautiful!"

Okay, now what?

We're at what they call a French Standoff. (Just made that up... patented, Robert Ward)

We're circling around and around here, in the subjective washing machine.

Everyone's right. Everyone's wrong.

Beauty and ugliness are in the eye of the beholder.

For instance, a poster earlier in this thread wrote:
"May seem like you're beating a dead horse (and you might be)."

I responded somewhere with, "I prefer to look at it as a slightly injured thoroughbred being nursed back to galloping health."

It's all so subjective William. All so subjective.

Here's proof. If the powers-that-be in Hollywood know exactly what to produce and what we as a viewing public like (and according to you they don't want to make FLAT PENNIES), why does Hollywood end up making flops sometimes?

Reply to: why does Hollywood end up making flops sometimes?

Excellent question.

The key player previously made a movie, or three, for the studio, and those movies made a ton of money. Sylvester Stallone wins fans with Rocky, loses them with FIST. Who would want to see Sly as a union boss?

Joel Schumacher on "Batman and Robin." Compare it to "Batman Begins." The project was a wonderful idea but the Director made all the wrong choices.

You've got to see this from the studio's POV. They lack knowledge. They read a script, they look at the director and actors, and make a decision. Yes or No.

why would anyone make "Sucker Punch"? Haven't figured that one out. Why would anyone make "The Golden Compass"? The studio head took a big gamble with Peter Jackson on LOTR, won, and decided to gamble again on a bad and unpoular series of novels.

It's NOT subjective... when you have a gifted teacher evaluate the script for Inner Dilemma, how the Hero comes across, and the important things that aren't obvious.

Clint Eastwood found a script that offered him a great role for 80 years old, and won a Best Picture. that's a success. It just didn't make any money.

If you look at a Harvey Weinstein picture... it gets awards because Harvey NEEDS the award to keep his company from going bankfrupt. He throws lavish parties and reminds everyone who ever cashed a paycheck from Miramax.

A sense of Victory at the end... a compeling character that you would like to watch in two more movies... AS needs a particular kind of script for the FIRST movie. Basically, is there a kid who can become a Role Model like Harry Potter? Who has a brain best friend like Hermione? Does it appeal to a demographic like My Big Fat Greek Wedding?

Take three people. A girl aged 13. A man aged 50. And a woman 65. Would they have a special reason to buy a ticket to the movie? think about Titanic. Think about Harry Potter.

As long as we're here, let's take this somewhere.

Harry Potter created the world's greatest boarding school, for a demogrraphic that goes to school five days a week, eight hours a day. Being a wizard let them wear cool wizard costumes.

Assume your pre-teen child has the complete Harry Potter collection on Blu-Ray.

Show me a concept that will make pre-teen boys and girls line up outside the theater instead of sitting at home re-watching Harry Potter.

(Two.) give me a way to add an emotional sense of Victory to Flat Pennies. You don't have to use it. I just want to see if you understand the concept.

Warner Bros has Batman and Harry Potter. Their execs are happy with them. They want something similar, but more emotional, more inolving, with a lead character who is more like a young Harrison Ford. i don't think he should be gay, but that's part of the question. Fifty years ago, John Wayne ruled. Now, the potential movie audience is so diverse and live in such overcrowded cities, it's hard to say "That's the hero they can get behind." A pirate who thinks he's a Rock Star? An Ogre who falls in love with a Princess? The Next Iconic Hero might be completely different than the old ones...

PLUMM PUDDEN.

Hey Samuel:

Is Plumm Pudden a nickname for William now?!

'm trying to help you. If it's a waste of my time, then I'll go elsewhere.

Your script didn't make the cut for several reasons.

We have some better resources now. We have five new finalists for Best Script. They were selected by two Guest Judges, so they weren't selected using the same critieria as previous winners.

check out the five finalists. Tell me how many of them demonstrate a 'sense of victory' at the end. How many of them disappoint the audience by revealing all the characters were only imaginary?

I'm saying, you don't have to listen to me. But check out the Winners. Get a sense of what is going to win at Amazon Studios. Quit making insults. Quit making snide comments.

Amazon Studios is trying to start a Development Process. To show how a script goes from premise to polish. They didn't seem very interested in the "Premise" part. they decided to insult rather than discuss. But... the Development Process means that the part of your script that DOESN'T WORK is FIXED so maybe it will have a chance to become a movie, that a stuido will invests millions of dollars in hope of getting some return.

I'm sorry you don't like the idea of fixing your mistakes. but I'm making an effort to follow the goal as stated everywhere on this site, to DEVELOP and FIX scripts.

Let's try this another way. Don't want to change "Flat Pennies." Then let's look at "The Milkman."

The idea is to Develop the script. To develop it into a movie with emotion and heart.

The Protag is Harry the Hammer, mob muscle in Chicago in 1957. Just before the first Playboy Club opened. A District Attorney wants Harry to testify against The Outfit, the Mob that controlled protection, gambling in Chicago.

I want to create a friendship between these two men, like Roger Murtaugh and Martin Riggs (notice hos the RM and MR are mirror images?)

The script needs action scenes that develop the friendship. Why do these two men become friends? That friendship isn't in the original, but I think it should be the most important element.

I think Chicago in the Playboy Era is ten times as interesting as any of the 5 finalists for Best Script this mnth.

How would you develop "The Milkman" to make it a blockbuster?

William, I don't think the guest judges select the finalists. I believe the guest judges select two winners from the finalists.

I really doubt that they read 51 semifinalists.

Thanks Ken. Should have found out the facts before I posted.

Not sure it changes anything. Maybe the 5 script finalists give us new insight into what the ordinary judges are looking for... and the eventual winner will give us insight into the guest judges...

Five scripts. Four monsters and a comedy about teenage sexual confusion.

When I started work on "The Milkman," I thought Sylvester Stallone was a good model for Harry. Now Stallone is playing a hitman in "Headshot" where he forms a friendship with a cop played by Thomas Jane. So, IF we develop "The Milkman," we'll be able to compare it to a very similar story (albeit more violent and gruesome) actually made by WB and directed by Walter Hill.