Your screenplay is wrong. Here's why.

[Flicker Pictures]

Came across this on the Internets, thought it was worth posting...

http://www.fastcocreate.com/3022129...in-one-handy-infographic?partner=newsletter#1

Last year, a scriptreader read 300 scripts for 5 studios, all the while taking notes on the problems and trends he saw. The number 1 problem? The story started too late in the script.

The scriptreader listed 37 frequently occurring problems, here are the top 20:

The story begins too late in the script
The scenes are void of meaningful conflict
The script has a by-the-numbers execution
The story is too thin
The villains are cartoonish, evil-for-the-sake-of-evil
The character logic is muddy
The female part is underwritten
The narrative falls into a repetitive pattern
The conflict is inconsequential, flash-in-the-pan
The protagonist is a standard issue hero
The script favors style over substance
The ending is completely anti-climactic
The characters are all stereotypes
The script suffers from arbitrary complexity
The script goes off the rails in the third act
The script’s questions are left unanswered
The story is a string of unrelated vignettes
The plot unravels through convenience/contrivance
The script is tonally confused
The protagonist is not as strong as [he or she needs to] be

An anonymous professional scriptreader read 300 screenplays for five different studios recently, all the while tracking the many recurring problems found along the way. If it's frustrating experience to bang out a screenplay without much experience, just imagine what it's like to read some of these hastily banged-out doozies, one after the other. Eventually, the person doing so organized all the data into a handy infographic that could be read as a diagnostic on where screenwriters go wrong.

The infographic is too huge to post here, but it's on the website link above.

And I don't agree lock, stock and barrel with the findings and reasons, since each script will have its own merits and issues and specific ways to help improve that script. What appeals to one reader may not for another. Only wanted to share the link and info with y'all.

 

[directorik]

...Okay, I can go along with that. What I was wondering, though, is what would be the percentage if the "spelling errors and egregious grammar mistakes" scripts were eliminated from the math? ...I imagine they make up a large percentage of your "Pass" category?

The percentage of writers with agents submitting is statistically
so low (well under .5%) that it's not worth mentioning. The
percentage of writers submitting to agents is much higher. I'm
going to guess 20/30%. They get dismissed quickly making the
profession seem much better in my opinion.

The vast majority of scripts submitted to the studios, producers and
prodCo's are passed on not because of spelling, typos and grammar
mistakes - they are passed on because of the list posted here. The
vast majority of writer who get to that point of having their script
covered by someone like me fail because of poor story telling. And
the vast majority of those writers think they have written a unique
script that has potential. Writers tend to point the blame everywhere
else (lazy readers, "rules", non-creative producers, the restrictive
3-act structure) except the one who is the real problem.

Even those people do not make the profession seem so bleak to me.
But then I am one of those "glass-half-full" types. I see those people
who do write great script and make those sales and think the screenwriting
profession encouraging.

P.S. I have yet to read a script posted on this forum that would make it past "Pass" and 100% have had extensive spelling, grammar and formatting errors ...and I haven't been here long at all.

To be fair (and more positive) most of the ones you read here are first
drafts from first time writers asking for advice on how to proceed. I get
a lot of PM's asking me to read a script - I tell them to make sure it's a
presentable draft before sending it to me, that I will stop reading after
typo/spelling error number five so I do not see extensive spelling,
grammar and formatting errors here.

To be fair to you (and more negative) I have never read a script from a
writer here I would even "consider". But not because of extensive spelling,
grammar and formatting errors.

 

[rayw]

... I have never read a script from a
writer here I would even "consider". But not because of extensive spelling,
grammar and formatting errors.

What are a few of the reasons they've never warranted a "consider?"

 

[directorik]

What are a few of the reasons they've never warranted a "consider?"

Too many have tried to break "convention" for the sake of being creative.
Poorly developed characters.
An uninteresting opening. ("Stay with it. It gets better")
Too many are in another writers style. (Guess whose)
The conflict is told and not shown.

The main reasons would be I don't see the movie in my minds eye as I read.
I do not see a producer or director or actors wanting to make the film. I do
not see a "market" for the finished product.

 

[ahennessey]

John August, a professional screenwriter, was discussing this infographic on his podcast with Craig Mazin.

August worked, at the beginning of his career, as a reader. He said that he actually thought the number of considered in this infographic seemed a bit high!

He also pointed out that in all his time as a reader, he only Recommended about 3 scripts. He then added that for every single one of those he was called on the carpet to explain exactly why he had wasted executives' time.

 

[Birdman]

This is why writing spec scripts is largely such a waste of time effort and energy, and why so many actually produced films are by writer/directors.

You can write a perfectly good story with all sorts of delightful character arcs, nuanced character development, twists and turns, red herrings, and clever plot twists. You can even tailor it to a general budget range. But... there's no way on earth to tell what the producer's actor, location, and effects pool is - and those are the PRIMARY reasons why perfectly good screenplays, rare as they are, are rejected ON TOP OF the general screener reasons of the screenplays most often submitted are technical and structural train wrecks.:

directorik, If you're still tuning in, the above post is one of the many "Doom and Gloom" posts that I wrote about earlier. Yah, everyone knows it's tough ...but some scripts DO make it through. The message should be, "Don't focus on how tough it is ...focus on beating the odds". I'm not saying RayW is wrong. All I'm saying is that "doom and gloom" shouldn't be the battle cry of the script writer.

The percentage of writers with agents submitting is statistically
so low (well under .5%) that it's not worth mentioning. The
percentage of writers submitting to agents is much higher. I'm
going to guess 20/30%. They get dismissed quickly making the
profession seem much better in my opinion.

...Great! I wish more posts from others stated the same thing.

The vast majority of scripts submitted to the studios, producers and
prodCo's are passed on not because of spelling, typos and grammar
mistakes - they are passed on because of the list posted here. The
vast majority of writer who get to that point of having their script
covered by someone like me fail because of poor story telling. And
the vast majority of those writers think they have written a unique
script that has potential. Writers tend to point the blame everywhere
else (lazy readers, "rules", non-creative producers, the restrictive
3-act structure) except the one who is the real problem.

...Okay, now strangely enough, this is where I end up looking like the "bad guy". If I were critiquing a script and found lots of spelling errors and grammar problems I would toss it no matter what. If the minimum effort of "proofreading" hasn't gone into it, why should I even waste my time reading it? In my opinion, THESE are the people who make it so hard for everyone else. I wish that they didn't even figure into the math.

A non-proofed script with structural problems is like the first-round screening of "American Idol". You get the terrible singers, the has-beens, Britney Spears wannabees, jokesters and the crackpots all out within the first round. It's the "funny segment" of the show. What is left is maybe 5% to 10% of everyone who tried out. Out of that remaining 10% is where the true "critiquing" begins and the SERIOUS SINGERS are found.

If I was interviewing someone for a job and this person showed up late and in a tee shirt with scrubby jeans ...then he doesn't even get past "Hello" let alone a job.

Even those people do not make the profession seem so bleak to me.
But then I am one of those "glass-half-full" types. I see those people
who do write great script and make those sales and think the screenwriting
profession encouraging.

...Well now you're getting me all misty-eyed. I have yet to read a script posted here worth its paper. However, I have read several good scripts online. If I eliminate the people who probably shouldn't be writing a script, the percentage of "good scripts" is a lot higher. But I DO feel the non-proofed, error-plagued scripts make it hard for everyone else who is truly serious about their scripts.

To be fair (and more positive) most of the ones you read here are first
drafts from first time writers asking for advice on how to proceed. I get
a lot of PM's asking me to read a script - I tell them to make sure it's a
presentable draft before sending it to me, that I will stop reading after
typo/spelling error number five so I do not see extensive spelling,
grammar and formatting errors here.

...Nobody has sent me one via PM nor am I a professional. From the open-forum links posted in these threads pretty much all of them had easily correctable spelling/punctuation errors. Errors to the point that their same level of "lack of attention" made its way into their story line.

To be fair to you (and more negative) I have never read a script from a
writer here I would even "consider". But not because of extensive spelling,
grammar and formatting errors.

...Well, ...................I have to agree. It hurts me to admit it, but it's true. But I look forward to seeing that first excellent script and believe it will happen one day.

-Birdman

 

[Birdman]

John August, a professional screenwriter, was discussing this infographic on his podcast with Craig Mazin. August worked, at the beginning of his career, as a reader. He said that he actually thought the number of considered in this infographic seemed a bit high! He also pointed out that in all his time as a reader, he only Recommended about 3 scripts. He then added that for every single one of those he was called on the carpet to explain exactly why he had wasted executives' time.

...Then he should have found a different company to work for.

-Birdman

 

[Birdman]

...I'm starting to get the impression that we're both arguing the exact same point, and just misconceiving that the other is trying to disagree. I'm trying to argue that villains don't absolutely need arcs and that the article doesn't even try to really argue that they do. By what you said above, it looks like you're saying the same?

...maybe we are saying the same thing? All I know is that according to the "Why Your Script is Wrong" list, if I have one of these "Non-Arcing Villains" in my script I end up in the circular file.

If I wrote the "Star Wars" script and posted it on line here on Indie looking for opinions from posters ....I would probably get slammed for my blatantly stereotypical bad guys, predictable characters and cliché story line. ...Because it ultimately ended up as a hit movie, now suddenly it "all makes sense"!

How many more scripts are sitting in a dumpster right now that could have been the next Star Wars?

-Birdman

 

[Birdman]

I agree with you. But an arc doesn't have to be extreme, the character simply has to change based on the actions and decisions that s/he made. And there are ways to make even stock characters more interesting and three dimensional. Your antagonist and protagonist need to stand out in contrast. No one is completely bad or good. Flaws make for good writing. If you read scripts on any of the script communities, you get a quick sense of what is meant by characters who have the same voice, are cardboard throughout, and/or really invoke no level of interest. I wish I could share some of the bad scripts to illustrate that.

Okay ...THIS is the problem! YES THEY ARE!!!

Some people are just plain fucking rotten to the core. Some people are like angels. It is NOT necessary to show the good and bad in all people.

There has been some mysterious change in today's society to where everyone wants to (or needs to) find the good or bad in all people. The world doesn't want to point a finger at someone and say, "Take a look at the bad guy" anymore. Today we have to dig deep into their inner soul, explore their psyche and find that tiny hidden part of goodness that all people must possess. ...........................BULLSHIT!!

I see news items every day on people who have done things totally unimaginable to others. They don't care about ANYTHING! The purest of pure evil is what they embody. And characters in scripts should be made to reflect the truth of that statement. If society loses track on what is truly evil because we have to "find the middle ground" on why they became so evil ...then we will never be able to recognize what evil is ever again.

I don't want to know about the horrible story behind why some child molester rapes and kills children. I don't need to know how they suffered early in life or the good things they might do along the way. I don't want someone trying to show me the "good side" of people like this. There is a line that flat out doesn't get crossed and people are crossing it more than ever in these strange times.

EXAMPLE:

I've been watching the TV series, "Revolution". They have a character named Sebastian Monroe. He's murdered and tortured countless people. He was a despicable, heartless, cold-blooded killer. These last few episodes have him depicted as a quasi "Good Guy". Future episodes point at him reverting back to his earlier asshole self.

I'm on a fucking "Character Arc Rollercoaster" with this guy! ...And nobody in real life would behave in this way. The people who produce this show are unknowingly (or knowingly) programming future generations to not be able to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil.

Give me good, ol Khan from Star Trek any day of the week. He's a bad guy that got himself a whoopin'.


-Birdman

P.S. Can't wait to see the movie where we explore the good natured side of Adolf Hitler. ...He was so misunderstood, ya know?

 

[trueindie]

"You know who had an ark?... Noah." - Pussy Bonpensiero The Sopranos.
watch from the 2:00 minute point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5zpygXkz3o

 

[Caidh Mor]

...maybe we are saying the same thing? All I know is that according to the "Why Your Script is Wrong" list, if I have one of these "Non-Arcing Villains" in my script I end up in the circular file.

Interesting interpretation of something the infographic never says. Like I mentioned before, it says the villains shouldn't be cartoony. That's a statement far and away independent from not having depth. Just because they don't change doesn't mean they're one-dimensional.

If I wrote the "Star Wars" script and posted it on line here on Indie looking for opinions from posters ....I would probably get slammed for my blatantly stereotypical bad guys, predictable characters and cliché story line. ...Because it ultimately ended up as a hit movie, now suddenly it "all makes sense"!

You would, because the Star Wars series has gotten so big that it has become the cliché. It's the same thing with The Matrix. You mimic the script after the phenomenon and it shows.

How many more scripts are sitting in a dumpster right now that could have been the next Star Wars?

Who knows, probably a ton. That's the thing about creativity: it's an infinite resource. A script not only needs to be a solid story, but also needs to go into the right hands.

 

[Birdman]

Interesting interpretation of something the infographic never says. Like I mentioned before, it says the villains shouldn't be cartoony. That's a statement far and away independent from not having depth. Just because they don't change doesn't mean they're one-dimensional.

...Actually, Cartoons (like rainbows and shadows) are two dimensional.

I consider Darth Vader (Star Wars), Zorn (5th Element), Khan (Star Trek), Auric Goldfinger, (Goldfinger), and The Terminator, (The Terminator) all to be "Cartoon Character" villains. They pop right out of the comic book pages in my opinion. They all have very little 'depth". They are all completely transparent bad guys. They have one mission in life: ...Be a real bad guy!

However, ...if you stack them up against bad guys like Hannibal Lecter, (The Silence of the Lambs), Anton Chigurh, (No Country for Old Men) and Max Cady (Cape Fear) you can clearly see the difference between a "Cartoon Bad Guy" and a "Serious Bad Guy".

This "Your Screenplay Sucks" list seems to only want the latter-type villains?


Can't you just picture bad ol' Darth Vader's breathy dialogue pages slooooowly fluttering down into the garbage can never to be heard from on the silver screen ...just because he matched the "Cartoon Character" qualifier on the "Why Your Screenplay is Wrong" list? ............It's just not right!



By the way. Here's a list of the "Top 50 Movie villains". Check out who gets the #1 slot on THEIR list!

-Birdman

 

[Caidh Mor]

...Actually, Cartoons (like rainbows and shadows) are two dimensional.

No crap, but in terms of character the terms "one-dimensional" and "cartoony" can both be used, and oftentimes for the same character.

I consider Darth Vader (Star Wars), Zorn (5th Element), Khan (Star Trek), Auric Goldfinger, (Goldfinger), and The Terminator, (The Terminator) all to be "Cartoon Character" villains. They pop right out of the comic book pages in my opinion. They all have very little 'depth". They are all completely transparent bad guys. They have one mission in life: ...Be a real bad guy!

However, ...if you stack them up against bad guys like Hannibal Lecter, (The Silence of the Lambs), Anton Chigurh, (No Country for Old Men) and Max Cady (Cape Fear) you can clearly see the difference between a "Cartoon Bad Guy" and a "Serious Bad Guy".

I think you have a huge misunderstanding of not only these characters, but what the writer of the article is looking for when he labels a villain as cartoony or one-dimensional. Darth Vader, Goldfinger, and The Terminator have clear motivations other than "be evil". They just happen to be in such a position that they are the force of antagonism for the hero. Vader is the big threat, but he's directly obedient to a specific chain of command, and he seems adherent of not subservient to his "ancient religion". This is some level of complexity. Certainly not as much complexity as Lector or Chigurh, sure, but it's no longer one-dimensional.

Besides, Lector doesn't arc either per se. Lector is Lector at the beginning and the end...he just happens to be really interesting in both locations!

Can't you just picture bad ol' Darth Vader's breathy dialogue pages slooooowly fluttering down into the garbage can never to be heard from on the silver screen ...just because he matched the "Cartoon Character" qualifier on the "Why Your Screenplay is Wrong" list? ............It's just not right!

Only he didn't, so the point's kinda moot.

 

[maz]

...Here's the deal. When I saw Star Wars at the theater (Yes I am that old) it didn't matter that there was going to be more movies. I paid my money to see that movie ...and that movie was exactly what I got. Nothing more - nothing less.

Bit of a tangent, but this is something that often frustrates me too, and if anything it's worse now that writers are almost as famous as the actors. They are interviewed in a hundred different places, and reveal details about a movie/TV show that are by no means clear from the actual piece of work they've written. If there is something important enought for a writer to talk about it, then it should be in the story and the script itself.

One time I complained to a friend about the appalling ending to Superman II, and was told, "It's perfect, you just have to watch the director's cut." Well, yeah, that's fine, but that doesn't stop this ending being appalling.

[/rant]

 

[Lucky Hardwood]

...Some people are just plain fucking rotten to the core. Some people are like angels. It is NOT necessary to show the good and bad in all people...

The thing is that nobody writes themselves as the villain in their own story. Hitler thought he was doing God's will, which made him the good guy in his mind. You talk about murderous child molesters, they see themselves as victims, not villains. They believe that they are servants to their urges and unable to control them, consequently not responsible for them or the heinous acts that "they make" them commit.

When you get an unapologetic bad guy (such as John Practice from Last Action Hero), it is rather refreshing.

 

[brianluce]

The thing is that nobody writes themselves as the villain in their own story. Hitler thought he was doing God's will, which made him the good guy in his mind. You talk about murderous child molesters, they see themselves as victims, not villains. They believe that they are servants to their urges and unable to control them, consequently not responsible for them or the heinous acts that "they make" them commit.

I've observed this to be true in life and typically in good fictional villains. I think one of the great movie badguys is Edward Longshanks from Braveheart. It's not difficult to imagine another version of Braveheart written from his perspective wherein he's not at all a villain but a leader seeking legitimacy and order in his realm.

 

[Birdman]

I've observed this to be true in life and typically in good fictional villains. I think one of the great movie badguys is Edward Longshanks from Braveheart. It's not difficult to imagine another version of Braveheart written from his perspective wherein he's not at all a villain but a leader seeking legitimacy and order in his realm.

...and that would be a box office smash having a brutal killer and man of world domination be the star of the movie. All the good people of the world being crushed under the feet of his advancing armies. People's new brides being forced to sleep with English Nobles as this this is their "Noble Right". He'd be the perfect role model for the children of today's society. We can walk away rooting for a brutal murderer hell bent on taking away your freedom. ...But he was just misunderstood, ya know? ...Probably a "victim" of something along the way?

The reason why movies like this aren't made is because civilization is based on "Good triumphing over evil". That's what guarantees you and your children a "tomorrow". The moment you start celebrating evil is the moment you see your tomorrow slipping away.

And what happens when you make movies showing the "sensitive side" or "victim circumstances" of child rapists? You get reduced sentences. You get sympathy in the court rooms, news media and politicians. Then you get sanctuary states providing refuge for these poor "victims of circumstances". ...then ultimately you get a lot more raped children. That's the way it works, people.

So get out there and make those scripts! Let's see the "brighter side" of poor old misunderstood Adolf Hitler. If you make it good enough maybe you can get those ovens fired up for another round?

-Birdman

 

[mlesemann]

I think a better example is how "Wicked" on Broadway (soon to be a movie) is the villainess of The Wizard of Oz from her perspective.

 

[rayw]

Maybe we could write a scifi revisionist history film about "The Big Three" of WWII developing a time machine to bring King Edward Longshanks into the future to defeat Hitler.

But things go slightly wrong in the dodgy time travel process when Longshanks and posse go to 1900 when Adolf was just ten years old, Longshanks and posse ass rape the poor little kid, destroys his mind and averts the rise of the Nazi party which The Treaty of Versailles crafted by the predecessors of "The Big Three", "The Big Four" of WWI, pretty much ensured something like that would eventually happen.

Oh, the moral quandaries.

Think we can have some character arc among multiple characters?

I think a better example is how "Wicked" on Broadway (soon to be a movie) is the villainess of The Wizard of Oz from her perspective.

I see this as one of two underlying thematic trends in HWood as of lately: 1) Dark remakes of light or middle of the ground films (Re Nolan's Batman, Snow White and the Huntsman, Dredd, Total Recall), and 2) remakes more from the perspective of the antagonist which provide more insight into "how they became bad" and "why are they bad."

I think Disney owns a goldmine of potentially misunderstood animated feature villains and monsters under their roof ripe for dark remakes from the antagonists POV.
http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Disney_Villains

 

[brianluce]

...and that would be a box office smash having a brutal killer and man of world domination be the star of the movie.
The reason why movies like this aren't made is because civilization is based on "Good triumphing over evil". That's what guarantees you and your children a "tomorrow". The moment you start celebrating evil is the moment you see your tomorrow slipping away.


-Birdman

Ridiculous. Civilization is absolutely not based on "good triumphing over evil" ; and movies (and other narrative forms) about historical figures like Longshanks, movies you claim "aren't made" are made all the time. Alexander the Great was far more brutal than Edward Longshanks, Elizabeth II's regime was imperialistic and murderous, Michael Corleone and every other movie about a mob leader. Oscar winners. These are just off the top of my head. Movies, let alone history -- particularly history, do not conform to some Star Wars Disney paradigm.

Regarding Longshanks, historians don't remember him the way Hollywood does. He's considered a reformer of the legal system and much like President Obama, a man tasked with cleaning up his predecessor's mess. It's a long, fascinating, nuanced legacy.

Anyway, you already broke Godwin's Law, so you're pretty much done here Birdman.

 

[Birdman]

Ridiculous. Civilization is absolutely not based on "good triumphing over evil" ; and movies (and other narrative forms) about historical figures like Longshanks, movies you claim "aren't made" are made all the time. Alexander the Great was far more brutal than Edward Longshanks, Elizabeth II's regime was imperialistic and murderous, Michael Corleone and every other movie about a mob leader. Oscar winners. These are just off the top of my head. Movies, let alone history -- particularly history, do not conform to some Star Wars Disney paradigm.

Regarding Longshanks, historians doesn't remember him the way Hollywood does. He's considered a reformer of the legal system and much like President Obama, a man tasked with cleaning up his predecessor's mess. It's a long, fascinating, nuanced legacy.

Anyway, you already broke Goodwin's Law, so you're pretty much done here Birdman.

Then you go right ahead and click away on that next script glorifying Nero ...or Manson maybe? Jeffrey Dahmer was also misunderstood. I'd love to see the brighter side of him. That's where my Friday night movie money wants to go.

Sure, there are movies about famous "Bad Guys" ...but they don't glorify them. There's always the part that shows their true colors. And you're asking a lot out of a "Bad Guy" discussion to not include Adolf Hitler.

" ...so you're pretty much done here Birdman" ...Yep, dictators sure do love to control people's opinions.

-Birdman