• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Writing for a trilogy

B

Boz Uriel

I have been asked to critique a script and during the back and forth banter it became clear that the script I critiqued was part one of a three part series of movies this guy wants to write. He's written this one, it's feature length, parts two and three are going to be the same length (all on spec) and when I ask him about dangling plot points he tells me that gets resolved in parts two or three.

So far I've told him this. One of my writing profs had this to say about sequels: "If this isn't the most interesting thing that's ever happened to this character, then why aren't you telling that story?" I also told him that he should probably write the best movie he can and this would supersedes any dangling plot lines held in reserve for a part two and three. Get the first one sold and worry about the rest later.

I also told him I'd ask around and get other opinions. So, here I am. When you write, is it okay to write with parts two and three in mind?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I too would suggest that he write the best film he can from the three parts.. but if he insists on writing a trilogy, he should have the whole thing written before he starts shopping any of it around.

Likely though, it's a story that can be told in one film versus three. Also, if he were to consolidate the story into one film, it would most likely make for a stronger story. Granted that is not always the case, but my guess is, without reading it, that he is filling space with unneeded events leaving gaping holes in the story to reinforce the "need" for a second or third part. In my opinion that's just stupidity and greed. That's my opinion... Without reading it, mind you.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Extremely

Boz Uriel said:
I have been asked to critique a script and during the back and forth banter it became clear that the script I critiqued was part one of a three part series of movies this guy wants to write. He's written this one, it's feature length, parts two and three are going to be the same length (all on spec) and when I ask him about dangling plot points he tells me that gets resolved in parts two or three.

So far I've told him this. One of my writing profs had this to say about sequels: "If this isn't the most interesting thing that's ever happened to this character, then why aren't you telling that story?" I also told him that he should probably write the best movie he can and this would supersedes any dangling plot lines held in reserve for a part two and three. Get the first one sold and worry about the rest later.

I also told him I'd ask around and get other opinions. So, here I am. When you write, is it okay to write with parts two and three in mind?
Click to expand...
Sound advice.

filmy
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Best advice I have for a trilogy is not to plan it then in part three have the hero find out the girl he copped of with TWICE in the previous film sis actually his sister... oh actually hasn't some one already done that
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've been developing a 'non-fluff' vampire script for a few years now that's blossomed into a 300-page monster. I've been fighting with myself whether I should trim it down to a short 100 pages or so or cut it into two distinct films (I don't think that anyone would sit through a 5 hour DV production). The bulk of the story is character development and I feel is required to 'get to know' the characters properly so you properly understand the struggle that they go through in the second half.

It's rare that someone has a large enough three-part script to cut into a trilogy. I agree that he should have the whole thing written before he tries to sell it. I think it's the only way to make it marketable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sorry if I derail this a bit...

Loud Orange Cat said:
The bulk of the story is character development and I feel is required to 'get to know' the characters properly so you properly understand the struggle that they go through in the second half.
Click to expand...
It's possible that you are just too attached to the story to cut any of it out. Character development can always be compressed. That's the benefit of this format, the moving images are so much more informative than words on the page. You could squeeze 20 pages of text into a few seconds of screen time.

A good example is the Harry Potter movies.. first one in particular. If you read the book, or listen to the audio version, as I did.. There is a huge chunk of writing devoted to what takes place in the first minute of screen time. The audio book, that piece of the story spans about an hour, I'd estimate 30-50 or so pages of the book.

Don't forget the power of montage, and less is more. Especially less is more.. it seems to be something films, especially indie films, lack these days. The audience doesn't need to be spoonfed all the info. Give them just enough to know what they need to know, and let them figure out the rest. It'll make for a more engaged audience.

Ok... tangent ended. Though I think some of what I just said applies to the original topic too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would say that unless you're a proven box office draw, like Quentin Tarantino, don't attempt to write a two parter or trilogy for spec scripts. Like you said originally, Boz, just try to write one good screenplay. That's hard enough as it is, much less trying to pitch a trilogy as an unproven screenwriter. Most trilogies aren't written with parts 2 and 3 in mind. They happen because part 1 is really popular. I have an older brother who recalls going to see Star Wars in the theater during its first release and he said there wasn't any of that "Episode 4" junk before the movie. It's highly likely that Star Wars wasn't even written with a sequel in mind.

Really focus on getting that one script right.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dylan61 said:
I would say that unless you're a proven box office draw, like Quentin Tarantino, don't attempt to write a two parter or trilogy for spec scripts.

It's highly likely that Star Wars wasn't even written with a sequel in mind.

Really focus on getting that one script right.
Click to expand...

...I would have to agree. And the way I heard it, Tarantino wrote Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and True Romance, (not clear on which 3 films really) but he wrote them all in one creative tear. Add Jackie Brown and you have a grouping of films that are all connected somehow. But the point is that, the way I understood was that it was as if he was writing ONE film.

Kill Bill part 1&2 was ONE film.
And then you have The Matrix, a great idea killed by bad sequels.

I think one thing that bears looking out for in writing a script is to make sure you have one good story. If the story turns out to be an 'epic', bust it down into 2 or 3 films, but make the first one good enough so that people will care to see the next sequel....this part The Matrix got right...

I hope I can remember that when I decide to branch out into writing a screenplay....

-- spinner :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent said:
It's possible that you are just too attached to the story to cut any of it out.
Click to expand...
Yes. I'm definately attached to this project that I've devoted many years to. I think it's a very unique script and don't want to compromise it in any way.

Will Vincent said:
Character development can always be compressed. That's the benefit of this format, the moving images are so much more informative than words on the page. You could squeeze 20 pages of text into a few seconds of screen time.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more! I wrote much more of this script and then squeezed it to the best of my ability, this is why I suggested cutting it into two films.

Basically, it's like splitting the two halves of Full Metal Jacket if each half ran two and a half hours each.

Sure, I can slice and dice it to death, but I'm afraid of trimming something essential...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
dylan61 said:
It's highly likely that Star Wars wasn't even written with a sequel in mind.
Click to expand...
Actually.. The entire 6 part star wars series was written as one long space opera.. Lucas just chose what he felt to be the strongest chapter of the story to use as the first film.. Is it ironic that that section is the exact middle of the story? Not really.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent said:
Actually.. The entire 6 part star wars series was written as one long space opera.. Lucas just chose what he felt to be the strongest chapter of the story to use as the first film..
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that this is just what Lucas said after the popularity of the first film. If you watch Star Wars, you realize that it stands very well on its own as one movie with a complete beginning/middle/end. There's really no reason for a sequel. I'm not saying that Empire was bad. It happens to be my favorite of the trilogy. But I think Lucas was just a brilliant businessman as well as a decent filmmaker at the time of the original Star Wars.

I have no proof of any of this, except my brother's recollection of seeing Star Wars in its original first theatrical release. I just think he may have had ideas at most for some other parts, but he made one really good movie. That's what allowed him to make sequels.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IMHO, a completed epic-length screenplay (rather than a multipage synopsis) would be more attractive to film execs if you're trying to sell them on it.

Development costs run high and there's no guarantee a screenplay of a large size would get completed in the time frame they want.

Execs hate taking risks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you're writing a spec script, it's a good idea to leave the door open for a sequel, but it's not a good idea to leave things unresolved.

Also, no matter how great the story is, nobody's gonna read a Spec Trilogy.

Poke
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top