I’m going to shut down and reboot for about a week, so there won’t be any posts or on-line tomfoolery in that time. It’s been a long, quiet and frustrating summer and a little respite is needed in order to recharge my batteries for the Autumn onslaught.
Here’s a guest post from Adrian Mead about what it takes to generate and sustain a screenwriting career. Keep those guest posts coming by the way. Get something off your chest. Share your experience. Communicate your insight. Nab some free publicity. Tell us what we need to know…
---
Adrian Mead has written and directed a number of short films and has also developed a career as a TV drama writer with credits on The Last Detective, The Eustace Brothers, Paradise Heights and Where the Heart Is. His debut feature film, as director, Night People, was developed and financed under the Scottish Screen/SMG New Found Film initiative. The film was shot on HD on location in Edinburgh in February and March 2005.
“Danny discussed in his blog about the huge numbers of aspiring screenwriters out there. It is true that there is a vast army who claim they burn to tell their stories "but the industry won't give me a break." If that's the case then why are so few willing to do what it takes to break in? Does the following describe you?
You are still struggling to get your break and become a professional screenwriter, despite what seems like years of effort.
You are downhearted and frequently grumpy with your loved ones because of your lack of success.
You procrastinate, then feel guilty and miserable because of your lack of progress.
You feel angry and frustrated when you hear about the success of other "less talented" mortals.
Sound familiar?
Okay here is my tough but heartfelt, sincere and well meant advice.
GIVE UP RIGHT NOW AND GET ANOTHER HOBBY.
Yep, I'm dead serious. Face up to it. You are deluding yourself.
Go and get another hobby that makes you and your loved ones happy. That doesn't make you feel miserable, guilty and "a failure."
Why do I think you are deluding yourself that this is nothing more than a hobby to you? Try this next checklist. If you are NOT a "hobby writer" you should be able to answer all or at least most of the following with multiple figures.
In the last year -
I submitted more than.......scripts to....... screenwriting competitions and schemes. (Lots of FREE opportunities out there)
I posted my scripts on.......online sites.
I approached.....agents to seek representation.
I researched and contacted.......Producers.
I attended...... festivals and industry events.
I approached ...... professionals for FREE advice. (Writers are suckers for flattery and free beer.)
I am developing....TV projects...shorts....features and investigating the world of writing for games.
I researched and attended....career building courses.
If you are REALLY serious about becoming a professional screenwriter you should be doing almost all of the above. Chant the following right now and every time you start to procrastinate -
"If I keep on doing what I'm doing, I'll keep on getting what I'm getting."
There are two major differences between all the writers I know who are achieving their goals and the hopefuls who are frustrated and going nowhere:
1// The successful ones are VERY HUNGRY and VERY PRO ACTIVE.
2// Even more importantly the successful ones have learnt to TARGET and FOCUS their efforts where they will reap the greatest rewards. You have to have a CAREER PLAN.
We are all fascinated by how people in Film and TV got their break and I take every opportunity to grill folk about it. Almost everyone I've spoken to achieved success by adopting the same attitude and approach. This is one of the areas I'm going to be covering in detail in our 4 day SCREENWRITING CAREER DEVELOPMENT class in October.
This is not a "How to Write" class. Instead we teach you EXACTLY what you need to do to become a professional screenwriter. You can get details about the course at writeforTV@universal-arts.com
There is also a FREE 15 PAGE BOOKLET available of career building tips for anyone who would like a copy. Contact info@meadkerr.com
Stop kidding yourself that you are going to get your break. Get the tools, the info and the inspiration you need to make it happen.”
For more information, visit Mead Kerr’s website.
---
Thanks Adrian!
Rabu, 30 Agustus 2006
Senin, 28 Agustus 2006
Triple A
Approach. Attitude. Application.
Approach:
A lot of people want to be writers. Scratch that. A lot of people want to be screenwriters. Thousands. Tens of thousands. All writing scripts. All dreaming of that elusive break into film and TV, and some breaking and entering through other routes such as theatre and radio.
So, what’s going to be your approach? What’s going to set you apart from the rest? What are you going to do to ensure that your work is not only read, but is better than all the others? How long are you going to last? How long are you willing to try? Are you going to read a couple of scripts a week (at least) to inform and develop your understanding of craft? Are you a movie fan or a genuine screenwriter? Are you going to be a professional and learn as much as you can about the industry before you put your work ‘out there’? In essence, how much are you willing to learn?
Attitude:
A positive and professional attitude will provide all the answers to the above questions. This attitude needs to be focused, committed and relentless. The industry is a fickle business. What it deems as crap from an untested writer they will think is gold from a more seasoned scribe.
This is the frustration and rejection that awaits; a wall of refusal from seemingly misinformed script editors/execs whose own English barely communicates what it thinks about your work, and yet you’re meant to submit to their decision. So how are you going to react? Sulk and moan? Pout and protest? Or take the sting and try to see their perspective, maybe the script needs more work? Or move on to the next project? Or stick to the day job?
Application:
The determination to succeed. The unshakeable belief in your talent. The relentless pursuit of writing good scripts; the inevitable course to a commission, the path to an agent’s door. But we’re all human. The determination, belief and pursuit is difficult to maintain. The rejections wear you down. You get slightly insecure about your work, and whether you’ve got anything of value to say at all.
Keep things in perspective.
When a producer says he’s interested in your script, great, but it means nothing until a deal is done, and a cheque is in the bank. If a company rejects your work and is willing to read other scripts, then continue to send them new projects. If however, they have not asked to meet you after your second submitted script, you need to consider if they are just being polite and encouraging rather than genuinely interested in you as a writer.
Nevertheless, it’s important to acknowledge every positive response to your writing - so you know you’re on the right track - but don’t mislead yourself into thinking there’s a commission just around the corner or that an agent will definitely take you on now that you’ve got that £200 option fee. Ignore all that. Keep on trying. Keep focused on your work. You’re a writer. That’s what you do. Write. No matter what. Rejections hurt, script editors/execs can get it wrong, deals can take forever to sort out, but no-one can stop you from writing. Ever.
Approach:
A lot of people want to be writers. Scratch that. A lot of people want to be screenwriters. Thousands. Tens of thousands. All writing scripts. All dreaming of that elusive break into film and TV, and some breaking and entering through other routes such as theatre and radio.
So, what’s going to be your approach? What’s going to set you apart from the rest? What are you going to do to ensure that your work is not only read, but is better than all the others? How long are you going to last? How long are you willing to try? Are you going to read a couple of scripts a week (at least) to inform and develop your understanding of craft? Are you a movie fan or a genuine screenwriter? Are you going to be a professional and learn as much as you can about the industry before you put your work ‘out there’? In essence, how much are you willing to learn?
Attitude:
A positive and professional attitude will provide all the answers to the above questions. This attitude needs to be focused, committed and relentless. The industry is a fickle business. What it deems as crap from an untested writer they will think is gold from a more seasoned scribe.
This is the frustration and rejection that awaits; a wall of refusal from seemingly misinformed script editors/execs whose own English barely communicates what it thinks about your work, and yet you’re meant to submit to their decision. So how are you going to react? Sulk and moan? Pout and protest? Or take the sting and try to see their perspective, maybe the script needs more work? Or move on to the next project? Or stick to the day job?
Application:
The determination to succeed. The unshakeable belief in your talent. The relentless pursuit of writing good scripts; the inevitable course to a commission, the path to an agent’s door. But we’re all human. The determination, belief and pursuit is difficult to maintain. The rejections wear you down. You get slightly insecure about your work, and whether you’ve got anything of value to say at all.
Keep things in perspective.
When a producer says he’s interested in your script, great, but it means nothing until a deal is done, and a cheque is in the bank. If a company rejects your work and is willing to read other scripts, then continue to send them new projects. If however, they have not asked to meet you after your second submitted script, you need to consider if they are just being polite and encouraging rather than genuinely interested in you as a writer.
Nevertheless, it’s important to acknowledge every positive response to your writing - so you know you’re on the right track - but don’t mislead yourself into thinking there’s a commission just around the corner or that an agent will definitely take you on now that you’ve got that £200 option fee. Ignore all that. Keep on trying. Keep focused on your work. You’re a writer. That’s what you do. Write. No matter what. Rejections hurt, script editors/execs can get it wrong, deals can take forever to sort out, but no-one can stop you from writing. Ever.
Rabu, 23 Agustus 2006
Severance
Severance opens this weekend.
It's written by James Moran. Yes, that James.
You should go to see it.
Tell your friends.
And generally spread the word.
It's a great show.
The perfect night out with your mates.
Or by yourself.
Or with your girlie.
Boyfriend.
Dog.
Whatever.
Just see it, and make the world a better place.
It's written by James Moran. Yes, that James.
You should go to see it.
Tell your friends.
And generally spread the word.
It's a great show.
The perfect night out with your mates.
Or by yourself.
Or with your girlie.
Boyfriend.
Dog.
Whatever.
Just see it, and make the world a better place.
Senin, 21 Agustus 2006
Subplots & Secondary Characters
Everyone knows about structure. It’s what all the books and gurus talk about and pretty much what all writers and bloggers obsess over. The three-act template. Four act structure. The five act epic. Inciting incident. End of act turning point. Mid-point of act two. End of act two reversal. Twist, resolution, end. Great. Marvellous.
Inherent to this structure is the use of subplots and secondary characters that support the main story line on its quest to the finish line. In the spec pile, these subplots and secondary characters are usually predictable and two-dimensional inclusions to conveniently prop the protagonist’s goal. In some scripts and genres, this is perfectly acceptable but often it’s the fine line between ‘genre expectation’ and ‘familiar cliché’ (the comedy sidekick, the hissable villain).
To avoid the familiar cliché aspect, it is useful to assign subplots and secondary characters with their own particular structure and specific detail. This helps them stand out from the crowd and support the main story line in a more complete and thematic manner. The spec pile is rife with subplots and secondary characters that don’t go anywhere or appear infrequently or make a flat contribution. With specific structure and attention to detail, the subplots can breathe life into a story, add depth to the characters and provide drama/humour before coming to a resolution of its own that is separate to the main story strand.
Too often, subplots and secondary characters are treated with contrivance or convenience, as if they only exist to serve the protagonist and his solipsistic story. It’s not that difficult to improve a subplot or give it added value. All that is required is that the subplot is broken down into a detailed structure to match the painstaking beats that have been bashed out for the main story line.
In a separate document or piece of paper, write the subplot out as a stand-alone story. If the main story line is included in this in some way, that’s fine, write it in, but the focus is on the subplot. That’s the main attraction for this exercise. Now, the question is: does the story (the subplot) go through enough peaks and troughs, sufficient twist and turns, and an adequate structure of its own that truly adds dramatic value to the overall screenplay?
No?
Then, put them in. Make it a priority. If these subplots and secondary characters really existed, then they would think that their story was more important, and more real, than whoever the writer has chosen as the hero. By giving the subplot a valued credence of respect and priority, it’s immediately going to add another depth and dimension to the proceedings. It’s going to spark off the main story line with more weight and assurance, and ensure a more compelling read for the hapless exec who’s got ten more scripts left on his desk.
Subplots and secondary characters: treat them with the same care and esteem as the main character and they’ll reward you and the reader with an entertaining story that is fully-rounded and impressive, leading the way for a ‘consider’ on the coverage.
Inherent to this structure is the use of subplots and secondary characters that support the main story line on its quest to the finish line. In the spec pile, these subplots and secondary characters are usually predictable and two-dimensional inclusions to conveniently prop the protagonist’s goal. In some scripts and genres, this is perfectly acceptable but often it’s the fine line between ‘genre expectation’ and ‘familiar cliché’ (the comedy sidekick, the hissable villain).
To avoid the familiar cliché aspect, it is useful to assign subplots and secondary characters with their own particular structure and specific detail. This helps them stand out from the crowd and support the main story line in a more complete and thematic manner. The spec pile is rife with subplots and secondary characters that don’t go anywhere or appear infrequently or make a flat contribution. With specific structure and attention to detail, the subplots can breathe life into a story, add depth to the characters and provide drama/humour before coming to a resolution of its own that is separate to the main story strand.
Too often, subplots and secondary characters are treated with contrivance or convenience, as if they only exist to serve the protagonist and his solipsistic story. It’s not that difficult to improve a subplot or give it added value. All that is required is that the subplot is broken down into a detailed structure to match the painstaking beats that have been bashed out for the main story line.
In a separate document or piece of paper, write the subplot out as a stand-alone story. If the main story line is included in this in some way, that’s fine, write it in, but the focus is on the subplot. That’s the main attraction for this exercise. Now, the question is: does the story (the subplot) go through enough peaks and troughs, sufficient twist and turns, and an adequate structure of its own that truly adds dramatic value to the overall screenplay?
No?
Then, put them in. Make it a priority. If these subplots and secondary characters really existed, then they would think that their story was more important, and more real, than whoever the writer has chosen as the hero. By giving the subplot a valued credence of respect and priority, it’s immediately going to add another depth and dimension to the proceedings. It’s going to spark off the main story line with more weight and assurance, and ensure a more compelling read for the hapless exec who’s got ten more scripts left on his desk.
Subplots and secondary characters: treat them with the same care and esteem as the main character and they’ll reward you and the reader with an entertaining story that is fully-rounded and impressive, leading the way for a ‘consider’ on the coverage.
Jumat, 18 Agustus 2006
Story Vault: UK TV Specs
I’m kind of languishing in August blues at the moment; I seem to have been waiting for reaction to a few significant projects for a while now, and it’s wearing me down. I’ve remained focused and proactive enough to finish a new script (a pilot for a new half hour comedy series, yikes!) and have been working on a series bible for a new (spec) project with a couple of other writers that’s shaping up well.
Still, I check my emails and missed calls with obsessive regularity to see if the commission’s in the bag, or the deal’s been done, or even if the producer simply wants to meet. It’s an unhealthy routine to acquire and now that my recent spate of reading and writing has subsided, I find myself curving towards that horizon like a sunflower on sunrise.
As it’s a bit of a quiet spell around the ‘scribosphere’ (I still can’t say it without wincing), and I’m spending most of the time grumbling about my empty in-box, here’s another post from the vault about UK TV Specs from last March. It’s not linked on the sidebar but Statcounter displayed that it was being accessed a few times.
What’s particularly notable about the post is the list of comments and reaction afterwards, which I had forgotten about, but was pleased to come across again, so if you want to read the discussion, click the link. The post without the comments is below.
---
Dan Owen recently got in touch with a few q’s about writing TV drama in the UK and I thought it might be useful to share the exchange on the blog.
1. US vs UK.
If you write a TV drama spec script for the UK, should you follow the
template of US hour-long drama? They have 1 teaser and 5 acts, structured around their ad breaks. However, the UK has less ad breaks and (if it's on the BBC) don't have ANY!
I have heard many different opinions on this question. Some say treat the hour like a movie and split it into 3 acts, some say you should have a teaser with 4 acts, other say 5 acts.
So what would YOU say is the best way to go?
A: For the UK market, it's best to write an original spec script of your own idea and characters (whether it be feature or TV script) as this is what producers and script editors like to read in order to judge the writer's talents.
In the US, it is commonly accepted that writers should write a spec episode of the show they want to work on and if you do that, you better make sure that you write to the particular style and structure of the series (teaser, four acts or whatever).
An hour of US time is only 42 minutes while an hour of UK time is 50 mins, or sometimes 60 mins if it's on the BBC (depending or not whether they want to sell it internationally, then they'll make it 50 mins so other broadcasters can fit in adverts around the hour slot).
If you want to write a spec script of, say, Dr Who, then my advice would be to study the existing shows back to front. Denis at Dead Things on Sticks has terrific advice on writing spec scripts, including "listening" to the show, not watching it. I’ve lost the direct link to the articles but they’re there…. Anyway, if you do write an ep of Dr Who, make sure to follow the style and structure as much as you can but still sticking to your original voice and talents because ultimately that's what they want to see.
2. Page Counts
Continuing from the question above, what is the accepted page count for Acts in the UK? Many US TV scripts are 50-odd pages long in total - spread in chunks of 10-15 pages per Act. Is that acceptable for the UK market? If not, how many pages per Act should you be aiming for?
A: About 15-20 pages sounds about right for each act. It varies from show to show. The West Wing for example runs to about 80-90 pages in total because it's so dialogue driven while other shows will be 40-50 pages that can be split into standard 10-15 mins segments. But it all depends on format too.
EastEnders and Doctors for example have specific formats that make their half hour duration run into 50/60 pages of script (Doctors has a standard ‘word count’ too: “a typical episode would consist of around 32-36 scenes - approximately 60 pages or approximately 6,800 words).
3. Formatting
I have recently been reading some scripts for Lost. It's a great show and I was interested in how they wrote their scripts. I recommend you take a look, if you haven't already, because I found them to be really enjoyable reads - even having seen the episodes already!
However... the Lost scripts completely break many "rules" I've had drummed into me about writing screenplays. Basically, they describe character's thoughts all the time and generally lead the actors and director by the hand with lots of camera directions and spell out the subtext. They even underline and capitalize stuff. A LOT!
Now, I know giving camera/actor directions like this IS acceptable when writing for TV in the US -- because writers have all the power, etc -- but should a UK spec script follow the same rules?
Personally, I know people say camera directions and suchlike distance
readers from scripts... but I actually find them more enjoyable and easier to totally enter the writers' imagination and visualize the events they want to see onscreen. Maybe I have a lazy directing side to my personality!
Anyway, it just strikes me that other TV scripts read very dry and bland when compared to the Lost scripts. The capitals and underlining also break the the "mundaneness" of a script, imo. I subconsciously devour pages because I can see in my peripheral vision that something REALLY EXCITING is going to happen because the capitals are waiting below!! ;-)
So, when writing a UK TV drama spec script... should you forget the
camera/actor directions and just write them as you would a conventional film script?
A: I think it's fairly impossible to write a script without writing what a character is thinking at some stage, the thing is not to over do it or make it feel over-literary.
Underline or capitals don't bother me when I'm reading a script but if they're overdone, then it's a turn-off. "Lost" does it well because ultimately, they're telling a riveting story and when that happens, format doesn't matter squat.
You've also got knowledge of the show and the characters, so you're reading the script with some appreciation already attached. Spec scripts don't have this luxury so my advice is feel free to use characters' thoughts and underlining, capitalising and even camera angles but make sure that they're inherent to the story, i.e. the script could not possibly be told in any other way in a dramatic and entertaining sense, and the reader won't even notice that the so called 'rules' being broken.
---
Still, I check my emails and missed calls with obsessive regularity to see if the commission’s in the bag, or the deal’s been done, or even if the producer simply wants to meet. It’s an unhealthy routine to acquire and now that my recent spate of reading and writing has subsided, I find myself curving towards that horizon like a sunflower on sunrise.
As it’s a bit of a quiet spell around the ‘scribosphere’ (I still can’t say it without wincing), and I’m spending most of the time grumbling about my empty in-box, here’s another post from the vault about UK TV Specs from last March. It’s not linked on the sidebar but Statcounter displayed that it was being accessed a few times.
What’s particularly notable about the post is the list of comments and reaction afterwards, which I had forgotten about, but was pleased to come across again, so if you want to read the discussion, click the link. The post without the comments is below.
---
Dan Owen recently got in touch with a few q’s about writing TV drama in the UK and I thought it might be useful to share the exchange on the blog.
1. US vs UK.
If you write a TV drama spec script for the UK, should you follow the
template of US hour-long drama? They have 1 teaser and 5 acts, structured around their ad breaks. However, the UK has less ad breaks and (if it's on the BBC) don't have ANY!
I have heard many different opinions on this question. Some say treat the hour like a movie and split it into 3 acts, some say you should have a teaser with 4 acts, other say 5 acts.
So what would YOU say is the best way to go?
A: For the UK market, it's best to write an original spec script of your own idea and characters (whether it be feature or TV script) as this is what producers and script editors like to read in order to judge the writer's talents.
In the US, it is commonly accepted that writers should write a spec episode of the show they want to work on and if you do that, you better make sure that you write to the particular style and structure of the series (teaser, four acts or whatever).
An hour of US time is only 42 minutes while an hour of UK time is 50 mins, or sometimes 60 mins if it's on the BBC (depending or not whether they want to sell it internationally, then they'll make it 50 mins so other broadcasters can fit in adverts around the hour slot).
If you want to write a spec script of, say, Dr Who, then my advice would be to study the existing shows back to front. Denis at Dead Things on Sticks has terrific advice on writing spec scripts, including "listening" to the show, not watching it. I’ve lost the direct link to the articles but they’re there…. Anyway, if you do write an ep of Dr Who, make sure to follow the style and structure as much as you can but still sticking to your original voice and talents because ultimately that's what they want to see.
2. Page Counts
Continuing from the question above, what is the accepted page count for Acts in the UK? Many US TV scripts are 50-odd pages long in total - spread in chunks of 10-15 pages per Act. Is that acceptable for the UK market? If not, how many pages per Act should you be aiming for?
A: About 15-20 pages sounds about right for each act. It varies from show to show. The West Wing for example runs to about 80-90 pages in total because it's so dialogue driven while other shows will be 40-50 pages that can be split into standard 10-15 mins segments. But it all depends on format too.
EastEnders and Doctors for example have specific formats that make their half hour duration run into 50/60 pages of script (Doctors has a standard ‘word count’ too: “a typical episode would consist of around 32-36 scenes - approximately 60 pages or approximately 6,800 words).
3. Formatting
I have recently been reading some scripts for Lost. It's a great show and I was interested in how they wrote their scripts. I recommend you take a look, if you haven't already, because I found them to be really enjoyable reads - even having seen the episodes already!
However... the Lost scripts completely break many "rules" I've had drummed into me about writing screenplays. Basically, they describe character's thoughts all the time and generally lead the actors and director by the hand with lots of camera directions and spell out the subtext. They even underline and capitalize stuff. A LOT!
Now, I know giving camera/actor directions like this IS acceptable when writing for TV in the US -- because writers have all the power, etc -- but should a UK spec script follow the same rules?
Personally, I know people say camera directions and suchlike distance
readers from scripts... but I actually find them more enjoyable and easier to totally enter the writers' imagination and visualize the events they want to see onscreen. Maybe I have a lazy directing side to my personality!
Anyway, it just strikes me that other TV scripts read very dry and bland when compared to the Lost scripts. The capitals and underlining also break the the "mundaneness" of a script, imo. I subconsciously devour pages because I can see in my peripheral vision that something REALLY EXCITING is going to happen because the capitals are waiting below!! ;-)
So, when writing a UK TV drama spec script... should you forget the
camera/actor directions and just write them as you would a conventional film script?
A: I think it's fairly impossible to write a script without writing what a character is thinking at some stage, the thing is not to over do it or make it feel over-literary.
Underline or capitals don't bother me when I'm reading a script but if they're overdone, then it's a turn-off. "Lost" does it well because ultimately, they're telling a riveting story and when that happens, format doesn't matter squat.
You've also got knowledge of the show and the characters, so you're reading the script with some appreciation already attached. Spec scripts don't have this luxury so my advice is feel free to use characters' thoughts and underlining, capitalising and even camera angles but make sure that they're inherent to the story, i.e. the script could not possibly be told in any other way in a dramatic and entertaining sense, and the reader won't even notice that the so called 'rules' being broken.
---
Kamis, 17 Agustus 2006
Save Children's TV
I received an email recently about ITV backing out of children’s TV:
“You may have heard already that because of proposals to limit the advertising of high salt, sugar and fat content foods on TV, ITV are likely to pull out of making children’s programmes all together. You may think that’s a good thing but bear in mind that while they will still be broadcasting children’s programmes, these programmes will most likely be imports.
If this ban goes ahead, my fear is that while our kids might eat one or two more apples, they will be fed a diet of US cartoons and sitcoms that have little bearing on their own cultural identity.
TV is always the whipping boy for our cultural and social ills and there is little proof that junk food advertising actually plays a significant part in creating our over fed and unfit children. Parenting and the Food Industry do that.
An alliance of Industry professionals (PACT, BECTU, WGGB, VLV, etc) have started a campaign - Action for UK Children’s Media (AUKCM) - to save children’s TV. If you’d like to find out more, check out the Action for UK Children's Media website, and register your support.”
---
And this is from AUKCM's newsletter:
"There are a number of important issues facing the children's media industry and the children's audience, some short term, others slightly further off. The aims of the Campaign are broadly to ensure that children in the UK continue to enjoy and benefit from well-funded quality media, produced in this country, which addresses their lives, interests, values and concerns.
In this we form part of a wider effort to preserve children's cultural entitlement in the UK, and we are in discussion with groups already campaigning in this field. Equally we ally with organisations such as the Writers' Guild, the VLV, PACT and BAFTA who have taken strong positions on the preservation of the UK production base for children's programmes.
Funding for children's programming is coming under increasing pressure, partly from changes in technology and consumer habits, and from the regulation against high fat, sugar and salt foods advertising to children expected later this year. These pressures lead to ITV's plans to close their children's production arm and to requesting Ofcom to allow them to decrease their regulated hours of public service
kids' TV on ITV1.
The Campaign will focus on these issues in the short term, but our approach will be pragmatic and realistic. The immediate issues are only part of the problem. The likely escalation of the effects of funding shortages and the failure of regulation need a long-term Campaign strategy to find new ways of protecting UK children's media."
“You may have heard already that because of proposals to limit the advertising of high salt, sugar and fat content foods on TV, ITV are likely to pull out of making children’s programmes all together. You may think that’s a good thing but bear in mind that while they will still be broadcasting children’s programmes, these programmes will most likely be imports.
If this ban goes ahead, my fear is that while our kids might eat one or two more apples, they will be fed a diet of US cartoons and sitcoms that have little bearing on their own cultural identity.
TV is always the whipping boy for our cultural and social ills and there is little proof that junk food advertising actually plays a significant part in creating our over fed and unfit children. Parenting and the Food Industry do that.
An alliance of Industry professionals (PACT, BECTU, WGGB, VLV, etc) have started a campaign - Action for UK Children’s Media (AUKCM) - to save children’s TV. If you’d like to find out more, check out the Action for UK Children's Media website, and register your support.”
---
And this is from AUKCM's newsletter:
"There are a number of important issues facing the children's media industry and the children's audience, some short term, others slightly further off. The aims of the Campaign are broadly to ensure that children in the UK continue to enjoy and benefit from well-funded quality media, produced in this country, which addresses their lives, interests, values and concerns.
In this we form part of a wider effort to preserve children's cultural entitlement in the UK, and we are in discussion with groups already campaigning in this field. Equally we ally with organisations such as the Writers' Guild, the VLV, PACT and BAFTA who have taken strong positions on the preservation of the UK production base for children's programmes.
Funding for children's programming is coming under increasing pressure, partly from changes in technology and consumer habits, and from the regulation against high fat, sugar and salt foods advertising to children expected later this year. These pressures lead to ITV's plans to close their children's production arm and to requesting Ofcom to allow them to decrease their regulated hours of public service
kids' TV on ITV1.
The Campaign will focus on these issues in the short term, but our approach will be pragmatic and realistic. The immediate issues are only part of the problem. The likely escalation of the effects of funding shortages and the failure of regulation need a long-term Campaign strategy to find new ways of protecting UK children's media."
Selasa, 15 Agustus 2006
What's on your desk?
I’ve been in my new house since December and the small spare room has been transformed into my office. My better half and her mother painted it while I was away ‘on business’ (nice one Danny), and it’s been arranged into a workable area for a computer, printer and various files.
On Sunday, I bought two plants; an African Violet for the windowsill and a Dracaena for the office-table. Nice. Still, I’m a bit disorganised and haven’t yet fully arranged the office into a presentable and efficient cubicle. It’s been a job ‘I’ll do tomorrow’ for the last six months.
As a result, here is what’s on my desk at the moment:
- All of the business cards of the people I met in Cannes.
- My lovely Tate Diary pocket diary.
- A scribbled piece of A4 paper that’s used for random notes, reminders, passwords etc.
- A calculator.
- A mini-stapler.
- A desk lamp.
- A digital camera.
- Learn Italian CD-Rom which “I’ll do tomorrow”.
- A couple of CDs that contain multiple episodes of The Amazing Adrenalinis which includes my episode ‘Actors of Infamy!’ (thanks Pesky for sending it through).
It’s a bit of a mess to be honest. It’s not unsightly but sadly disorganised and left to fester without any great motivation to clear it up. I’ll start tomorrow. Really.
The blog’s a year old now, since 12th August. This time last year, I was putting the finishing touches on my short film and still unsure whether to venture into the world of blogging. I’m so glad I did. It’s been great; a necessary and proactive distraction, and I’ve met lots of new friends and colleagues. Cool.
Also, if you have fifteen minutes, check out Sam Morrison’s latest animation short - Rocket Science! - in the Watch section of his website. It’s a black and white spoof of 1950s noir and B movies. It’s great. Sam made it himself, no funding from anywhere, so it took a while from his small studio in Bristol. His star will shine bright, oh yes.
Plus, if you fancy writing for River City, BBC Scotland’s flagship soap, then check out Vicious Imagery’s report about writing for the show that was held at the Edinburgh Filmhouse.
---
AND, if you didn't know already, top blogger and hot new talent James Moran has his debut film coming out on the 25th August. SEVERANCE. Wicked, go see it. But if you're in London on Thursday 24th August, at 6.30pm, and fancy seeing the PREMIERE with a FrightFest audience - and a Q&A with director (Chris Smith), writer (James) and the cast (loads) - then click on down to either FrightFest or Odeon's website (Tel: 0871 22 44 007). It's all on James's blog anyway, which everyone should be reading regularly as he's crossed that line, got his first film made, broken the stereotype, fulfilled the dream, living the moment... I'll shut up.
On Sunday, I bought two plants; an African Violet for the windowsill and a Dracaena for the office-table. Nice. Still, I’m a bit disorganised and haven’t yet fully arranged the office into a presentable and efficient cubicle. It’s been a job ‘I’ll do tomorrow’ for the last six months.
As a result, here is what’s on my desk at the moment:
- All of the business cards of the people I met in Cannes.
- My lovely Tate Diary pocket diary.
- A scribbled piece of A4 paper that’s used for random notes, reminders, passwords etc.
- A calculator.
- A mini-stapler.
- A desk lamp.
- A digital camera.
- Learn Italian CD-Rom which “I’ll do tomorrow”.
- A couple of CDs that contain multiple episodes of The Amazing Adrenalinis which includes my episode ‘Actors of Infamy!’ (thanks Pesky for sending it through).
It’s a bit of a mess to be honest. It’s not unsightly but sadly disorganised and left to fester without any great motivation to clear it up. I’ll start tomorrow. Really.
The blog’s a year old now, since 12th August. This time last year, I was putting the finishing touches on my short film and still unsure whether to venture into the world of blogging. I’m so glad I did. It’s been great; a necessary and proactive distraction, and I’ve met lots of new friends and colleagues. Cool.
Also, if you have fifteen minutes, check out Sam Morrison’s latest animation short - Rocket Science! - in the Watch section of his website. It’s a black and white spoof of 1950s noir and B movies. It’s great. Sam made it himself, no funding from anywhere, so it took a while from his small studio in Bristol. His star will shine bright, oh yes.
Plus, if you fancy writing for River City, BBC Scotland’s flagship soap, then check out Vicious Imagery’s report about writing for the show that was held at the Edinburgh Filmhouse.
---
AND, if you didn't know already, top blogger and hot new talent James Moran has his debut film coming out on the 25th August. SEVERANCE. Wicked, go see it. But if you're in London on Thursday 24th August, at 6.30pm, and fancy seeing the PREMIERE with a FrightFest audience - and a Q&A with director (Chris Smith), writer (James) and the cast (loads) - then click on down to either FrightFest or Odeon's website (Tel: 0871 22 44 007). It's all on James's blog anyway, which everyone should be reading regularly as he's crossed that line, got his first film made, broken the stereotype, fulfilled the dream, living the moment... I'll shut up.
Senin, 14 Agustus 2006
Guest Post: Doctors
A guest post from a regular writer of Doctors.
---
Actually, I meant to email you some time ago because yes, I did get a shot at this year's writer's academy and I read your post from last year about it as part of my prep, so thank you for that. Not that it did me much good, as I didn't get as far as you... more on that below.
Anyway:
Current status - writer for Doctors for 4-5 years now, with my good friend M - we're currently writing our 22nd episode, I think, so we average 4-5 episodes a year. When they had block contracts for Doctors - basically a guarantee you will write 4 episodes in a series - we had one, which was a nice comfort blanket though the money still isn't that great and of course we only get one fee to split between two of us. Current fee for an ep for experienced writers is about £3.6k.
We really, really like writing for Doctors. A lot of other people we know who write for the show, with more experience than us elsewhere, say that it is one of the nicer shows to work for. You have a lot of freedom to tell original stories, the people are for the most part very pleasant and supportive, and generally it is a more "writer-friendly" show than many that are out there. Obviously being daytime the pressures on the production team are correspondingly less, which must help. Typically you do a scene by scene and four script drafts, or three and a polish, within a 4-5 week timeframe.
We've also done half a dozen or so episodes for a kid's show you probably didn't see called Planet Cook.
I did a solo radio play last year on Radio 4 with a local producer up here in Suffolk. Having not been that interested in radio, I really enjoyed the experience - though my producer/director had a lot to do with that, as she was very collaborative - and would be keen to do more, but have failed to get any ideas through in the last three radio drama rounds.
M and I are developing various projects jointly and separately. We became a writing team almost by accident (BBC Talent came up in 2000, or was it 2001, we didn't have time to both do entries, so we wrote half a script each, joined it together, and got short-listed. From then on we were a team, to our mild surprise, but it works very well. From then it took about 12-14 months, I think, to get our first ideas accepted on Doctors, but luckily we’ve got stories through quite regularly since then.
We acquired an agent who is very good and pro-active and who we get on very well with. She watches all our episodes and gives us feedback, which seems to be rare. She's also incredibly friendly to us (she sends our kids presents!!) and ferocious on negotiations with producers, which is a good combination. We got her through Doctors, as she phoned our script editor there and asked if there was anybody who they rated who didn't have representation.
We both have day jobs, as the money from writing just isn't enough to support two wives and two toddlers.
Writers' Academy - we suspect the Doctors team pushed quite hard to get some of their hardcore writers on to this, as there was a good sprinkling of Doctors writers there. And apparently none of us got through, but that may not be correct, or if it is, just bad luck.
Aside: There is a general sense, I think, that moving on from Doctors is harder than it should be. It's always been claimed to be the "nursery slopes" for writers, but there is certainly no easy path on from there and certainly nobody comes looking for you. As always, you have to keep knocking on doors, making contacts, politely but firmly pushing yourself forward... we've had near misses with The Bill, Casualty, EastEnders and Emmerdale. In each case we had a meeting, been asked to send in scripts as a follow-up, and then been told no thanks. Or in at least one case, heard nothing further at all.
Anyway, we went along to the Writers' Academy "workshop" last month, participated in the group discussions, did our "scenes in an hour", went away and did the first 10 pages of an EastEnders script over night... and got told thanks, but no thanks. Feedback has been a little vague but as far as we can tell we fell down on the "scenes in an hour" exercise.
That was a bit of a blow - we hoped at least to get to the interview stage - but so it goes. It's hardly news that this is a staggeringly tough business and you hear 99 no's for every one yes. At least we have Doctors, and we're proud of our work there, and we have some new leads which have come up just this week which we're exploring. Fingers crossed.
Very happy to field questions on Doctors, as it's really the only area where I can speak with any authority...
---
Thanks! Just what I had in mind for guest posts. Keep 'em coming friends. On any matter or subject relating to the world of scriptwriting & script reading in the UK.
---
Actually, I meant to email you some time ago because yes, I did get a shot at this year's writer's academy and I read your post from last year about it as part of my prep, so thank you for that. Not that it did me much good, as I didn't get as far as you... more on that below.
Anyway:
Current status - writer for Doctors for 4-5 years now, with my good friend M - we're currently writing our 22nd episode, I think, so we average 4-5 episodes a year. When they had block contracts for Doctors - basically a guarantee you will write 4 episodes in a series - we had one, which was a nice comfort blanket though the money still isn't that great and of course we only get one fee to split between two of us. Current fee for an ep for experienced writers is about £3.6k.
We really, really like writing for Doctors. A lot of other people we know who write for the show, with more experience than us elsewhere, say that it is one of the nicer shows to work for. You have a lot of freedom to tell original stories, the people are for the most part very pleasant and supportive, and generally it is a more "writer-friendly" show than many that are out there. Obviously being daytime the pressures on the production team are correspondingly less, which must help. Typically you do a scene by scene and four script drafts, or three and a polish, within a 4-5 week timeframe.
We've also done half a dozen or so episodes for a kid's show you probably didn't see called Planet Cook.
I did a solo radio play last year on Radio 4 with a local producer up here in Suffolk. Having not been that interested in radio, I really enjoyed the experience - though my producer/director had a lot to do with that, as she was very collaborative - and would be keen to do more, but have failed to get any ideas through in the last three radio drama rounds.
M and I are developing various projects jointly and separately. We became a writing team almost by accident (BBC Talent came up in 2000, or was it 2001, we didn't have time to both do entries, so we wrote half a script each, joined it together, and got short-listed. From then on we were a team, to our mild surprise, but it works very well. From then it took about 12-14 months, I think, to get our first ideas accepted on Doctors, but luckily we’ve got stories through quite regularly since then.
We acquired an agent who is very good and pro-active and who we get on very well with. She watches all our episodes and gives us feedback, which seems to be rare. She's also incredibly friendly to us (she sends our kids presents!!) and ferocious on negotiations with producers, which is a good combination. We got her through Doctors, as she phoned our script editor there and asked if there was anybody who they rated who didn't have representation.
We both have day jobs, as the money from writing just isn't enough to support two wives and two toddlers.
Writers' Academy - we suspect the Doctors team pushed quite hard to get some of their hardcore writers on to this, as there was a good sprinkling of Doctors writers there. And apparently none of us got through, but that may not be correct, or if it is, just bad luck.
Aside: There is a general sense, I think, that moving on from Doctors is harder than it should be. It's always been claimed to be the "nursery slopes" for writers, but there is certainly no easy path on from there and certainly nobody comes looking for you. As always, you have to keep knocking on doors, making contacts, politely but firmly pushing yourself forward... we've had near misses with The Bill, Casualty, EastEnders and Emmerdale. In each case we had a meeting, been asked to send in scripts as a follow-up, and then been told no thanks. Or in at least one case, heard nothing further at all.
Anyway, we went along to the Writers' Academy "workshop" last month, participated in the group discussions, did our "scenes in an hour", went away and did the first 10 pages of an EastEnders script over night... and got told thanks, but no thanks. Feedback has been a little vague but as far as we can tell we fell down on the "scenes in an hour" exercise.
That was a bit of a blow - we hoped at least to get to the interview stage - but so it goes. It's hardly news that this is a staggeringly tough business and you hear 99 no's for every one yes. At least we have Doctors, and we're proud of our work there, and we have some new leads which have come up just this week which we're exploring. Fingers crossed.
Very happy to field questions on Doctors, as it's really the only area where I can speak with any authority...
---
Thanks! Just what I had in mind for guest posts. Keep 'em coming friends. On any matter or subject relating to the world of scriptwriting & script reading in the UK.
Kamis, 10 Agustus 2006
Guest Posts
This blog is all about sharing what it’s really like ‘scriptwriting and script reading in the UK’. You hear so many apocryphal stories about development, script editors, mad producers and obsessive directors, and they’re clearly not all true. This blog hopes to cut out all that maligned nonsense and get to the heart of what it’s really like to get on in this business.
Contacts, networks, options, development deals, TV work, rewrites, short films, directing, producing, script editing, script reading, producing, getting an agent, the BBC writers’ room. We want to know how hot it feels at the coal face of these activities; we’re not interested in the stereotypical impression.
By sharing this knowledge, it can only help those who are trying to make their voice heard in this saturated market of wannabe writers. If we’re more professional, dedicated and committed, with a shared wisdom of experience, then the more likely we can apply ourselves as a community of skilled scribes. This in turn will lead the UK film and TV industry into a financially and emotionally rewarding arena for all concerned.
If you haven’t got a blog but do have a voice, then I want to hear from you. If you have a funny, insightful or interesting experience about your latest script, short film, TV piece, scriptwriting course/book, whatever, then I’d like to know and publish it on the blog as a “guest post”.
Anyone out there get on the Writers’ Academy, or get an interview, how did it go? What’s your experience been like on Doctors? EastEnders? Any other show? What happened after you won that pitch event? Did it open any doors? What’s your development process been like? What’s the reality of a film deal: where and when does the money come in and is it as much as everyone thinks it is…? Are you a professional writer of well-known films or TV programmes? Would you like to share some horror or insightful stories?
Each article would get an intro on who you are and what you’re up to (or anonymous if you prefer) before leading into your story or advice. If this is of interest, then please email me with your post, anything between 400-800 words. Let’s spread the word, be professional, gather a supportive networking community and fight the good fight.
Contacts, networks, options, development deals, TV work, rewrites, short films, directing, producing, script editing, script reading, producing, getting an agent, the BBC writers’ room. We want to know how hot it feels at the coal face of these activities; we’re not interested in the stereotypical impression.
By sharing this knowledge, it can only help those who are trying to make their voice heard in this saturated market of wannabe writers. If we’re more professional, dedicated and committed, with a shared wisdom of experience, then the more likely we can apply ourselves as a community of skilled scribes. This in turn will lead the UK film and TV industry into a financially and emotionally rewarding arena for all concerned.
If you haven’t got a blog but do have a voice, then I want to hear from you. If you have a funny, insightful or interesting experience about your latest script, short film, TV piece, scriptwriting course/book, whatever, then I’d like to know and publish it on the blog as a “guest post”.
Anyone out there get on the Writers’ Academy, or get an interview, how did it go? What’s your experience been like on Doctors? EastEnders? Any other show? What happened after you won that pitch event? Did it open any doors? What’s your development process been like? What’s the reality of a film deal: where and when does the money come in and is it as much as everyone thinks it is…? Are you a professional writer of well-known films or TV programmes? Would you like to share some horror or insightful stories?
Each article would get an intro on who you are and what you’re up to (or anonymous if you prefer) before leading into your story or advice. If this is of interest, then please email me with your post, anything between 400-800 words. Let’s spread the word, be professional, gather a supportive networking community and fight the good fight.
Rabu, 09 Agustus 2006
Story Vault: Logline
August is both a quiet and busy month. A lot of script editors, producers and execs are still on their summer hols but return to the office round about now to gear up for the Edinburgh Film Festival, the Edinburgh International Festival and the Edinburgh Fringe. In Edinburgh.
And so, what with it being a bit quiet around here, I thought I'd dip into the blog's story vault and pick a post from the archives. The Logline. Deep Structure recently described his latest film in a brief logline and it came under criticism from Claude McIver who claimed that all loglines weren't very good. He makes an interesting point. The indispensible Inside Pitch has a great post about coming up with a good Hollywood idea and goes on to briefly describe those he thinks have that 'slam dunk' appeal just from their logline.
Here's what I said about the subject back in August last year (blimey):
"On the first page of a reader’s report (I’ll try to upload a sample report at some stage), there’s a section called the “logline” where the reader sums up the story in one or two sentences (preferably one). This is an essential part of the report, and indeed, a screenplay’s development. It’s the first thing the exec will look at, along with the report grid where an X marks the strengths of your script (Poor/Fair/Good/Excellent), and then the all-important ‘Brief’ or ‘Recommendation’ section where yours truly gets to elaborate on the Xs in a one or two sentence fashion.
But it’s the logline that’s the kicker. Sometimes writing the logline can take longer than writing the synopsis itself. When this happens, I know the story is in trouble because it’s not conveying its characters or plot in a clear or succinct manner. And, over the years, I’ve noticed that a good logline can really entice someone into the story (like a good 25 words or less pitch) and will usually indicate some basic plotting and structure that you would expect to see in the script. With this mind, it’s a really good idea for a writer to think of his logline before he starts writing his screenplay. It helps crystallise the concept and story so that the writer can remain focused on what needs to be told throughout the writing process.
The accepted template for a good logline goes something like this: “It’s about (a character/characterisation) who (action/desire, goal) but (conflict, the thing that’s getting in their way)”.
Some examples: “The civilian son of a mafia boss tries to protect his family after his father is critically wounded in a mob hit but finds himself dragged into the family business’ corruption and power.”
“A young farmhand on a distant planet joins the battle against the universe’s evil forces but doesn’t realise that his family’s dark secret will have serious repercussions for him and his friends”.
“A highly strung mother won’t allow her children to leave the house but when three disconcerting housekeepers turn up to help her, strange events occur that suggest the house is haunted.”
“A mild mannered Englishman begins to wonder if he’ll ever meet the woman of his dreams when he always attends weddings as a guest, never the groom, but when he meets a sexy American woman, he decides to pursue her as she could be the one to lead him up the aisle.”
“An adventurous secret agent is sent on a mission to stop an evil megalomaniac from doing his evil deeds but his passion for women and gadgets help and hinder him in equal measure in his efforts to save the world.”
These are my own loglines for these particular films but you get the gist. What’s important I think is that if I was pursuing these ideas as original screenplays, the loglines would help me develop what absolutely needs to happen in the story. In other words, it would help shape the structure or give me more ideas on how to expand the plot. Looking at The Godfather logline above, in the script I would know that an attempted assassination would have to take place, and that this would be quite exciting and dramatic, and be a pivotal moment in the whole story. So there’s my inciting incident (off the top of my head; I tried to analyse The Godfather’s structure once but I marked down five acts before I gave up).
A good logline is crucial. It’s how your story can be summed up in a neat one or two sentence (I know, sounds prescriptive and annoying but that’s the way it is) and will then be used by everyone who has to pitch your script to their bosses, and their bosses’ bosses etc. Loglines are not to be confused with “taglines” which is the marketing strap below your title on the poster to indicate some intrigue or hook about the film. “In space no-one can hear you scream” was Alien’s famous tagline but its logline would be something like “A modest space crew going home with their cargo stop to respond to a distress signal but are forced to confront a deadly alien who stows aboard their ship, leaving only one of the female members of the crew to fend for herself.”
Loglines don’t necessarily have to follow the well-worn template of “it’s about a blank who blah blah” but generally it helps to express your story in its simplest and most effective form as this is what cinemagoers are really after. They don’t want to be confused, they don’t want to be misled, they don’t want to be dazzled by your theme of Spanish paella through the 1800s, they just want to know what’s going on, who’s doing it and why. Generally.
As an aside, I read a script this morning which stated its genre was ‘General’. I could just see it now: “What should we go to see tonight luv? You know what I really fancy? Something ‘general’. A nice broad story with generic characters and an unspecific story line, that would be great!”
And so, what with it being a bit quiet around here, I thought I'd dip into the blog's story vault and pick a post from the archives. The Logline. Deep Structure recently described his latest film in a brief logline and it came under criticism from Claude McIver who claimed that all loglines weren't very good. He makes an interesting point. The indispensible Inside Pitch has a great post about coming up with a good Hollywood idea and goes on to briefly describe those he thinks have that 'slam dunk' appeal just from their logline.
Here's what I said about the subject back in August last year (blimey):
"On the first page of a reader’s report (I’ll try to upload a sample report at some stage), there’s a section called the “logline” where the reader sums up the story in one or two sentences (preferably one). This is an essential part of the report, and indeed, a screenplay’s development. It’s the first thing the exec will look at, along with the report grid where an X marks the strengths of your script (Poor/Fair/Good/Excellent), and then the all-important ‘Brief’ or ‘Recommendation’ section where yours truly gets to elaborate on the Xs in a one or two sentence fashion.
But it’s the logline that’s the kicker. Sometimes writing the logline can take longer than writing the synopsis itself. When this happens, I know the story is in trouble because it’s not conveying its characters or plot in a clear or succinct manner. And, over the years, I’ve noticed that a good logline can really entice someone into the story (like a good 25 words or less pitch) and will usually indicate some basic plotting and structure that you would expect to see in the script. With this mind, it’s a really good idea for a writer to think of his logline before he starts writing his screenplay. It helps crystallise the concept and story so that the writer can remain focused on what needs to be told throughout the writing process.
The accepted template for a good logline goes something like this: “It’s about (a character/characterisation) who (action/desire, goal) but (conflict, the thing that’s getting in their way)”.
Some examples: “The civilian son of a mafia boss tries to protect his family after his father is critically wounded in a mob hit but finds himself dragged into the family business’ corruption and power.”
“A young farmhand on a distant planet joins the battle against the universe’s evil forces but doesn’t realise that his family’s dark secret will have serious repercussions for him and his friends”.
“A highly strung mother won’t allow her children to leave the house but when three disconcerting housekeepers turn up to help her, strange events occur that suggest the house is haunted.”
“A mild mannered Englishman begins to wonder if he’ll ever meet the woman of his dreams when he always attends weddings as a guest, never the groom, but when he meets a sexy American woman, he decides to pursue her as she could be the one to lead him up the aisle.”
“An adventurous secret agent is sent on a mission to stop an evil megalomaniac from doing his evil deeds but his passion for women and gadgets help and hinder him in equal measure in his efforts to save the world.”
These are my own loglines for these particular films but you get the gist. What’s important I think is that if I was pursuing these ideas as original screenplays, the loglines would help me develop what absolutely needs to happen in the story. In other words, it would help shape the structure or give me more ideas on how to expand the plot. Looking at The Godfather logline above, in the script I would know that an attempted assassination would have to take place, and that this would be quite exciting and dramatic, and be a pivotal moment in the whole story. So there’s my inciting incident (off the top of my head; I tried to analyse The Godfather’s structure once but I marked down five acts before I gave up).
A good logline is crucial. It’s how your story can be summed up in a neat one or two sentence (I know, sounds prescriptive and annoying but that’s the way it is) and will then be used by everyone who has to pitch your script to their bosses, and their bosses’ bosses etc. Loglines are not to be confused with “taglines” which is the marketing strap below your title on the poster to indicate some intrigue or hook about the film. “In space no-one can hear you scream” was Alien’s famous tagline but its logline would be something like “A modest space crew going home with their cargo stop to respond to a distress signal but are forced to confront a deadly alien who stows aboard their ship, leaving only one of the female members of the crew to fend for herself.”
Loglines don’t necessarily have to follow the well-worn template of “it’s about a blank who blah blah” but generally it helps to express your story in its simplest and most effective form as this is what cinemagoers are really after. They don’t want to be confused, they don’t want to be misled, they don’t want to be dazzled by your theme of Spanish paella through the 1800s, they just want to know what’s going on, who’s doing it and why. Generally.
As an aside, I read a script this morning which stated its genre was ‘General’. I could just see it now: “What should we go to see tonight luv? You know what I really fancy? Something ‘general’. A nice broad story with generic characters and an unspecific story line, that would be great!”
Senin, 07 Agustus 2006
UK Scene
What are your thoughts generally on the state of UK screenwriting? Most UK movies seem very "clunky" on the script level.
This may come as a bit of surprise but the state of UK screenwriting is extremely healthy. There are a lot of talented writers out there and they fall into three categories: Well Known, Making a Good Living and Breaking Through. The well known writers are leading the way for box office success, at home and abroad. People like Richard Curtis, Simon Pegg & Edgar Wright, Purvis & Wade, Frank Cottrell Boyce etc.
Some writers will flirt between the ‘well known’ and ‘making a good living’ categories; Paul Laverty, Mellis & Scinto, William Nicholson, William Osborne etc. And then there’s the ‘breaking through’ group where, well, the list is endless. Most UK screenwriters reside in this category and this is the group that’s referred to whenever the system comes under criticism. Their work may vary from glimpses of brilliance to frustratingly bad, and possibly both in one sitting.
However, the assertion that most UK movies seem very “clunky” is an unfair criticism aimed at the writer. There are a host of changes, alterations and amendments that can occur during the development and filmmaking process, some or most of which won’t be approved by the writer, or the poor scribe won’t even be consulted. Producers, directors, script editors and actors occasionally make the wrong choices, and a script suffers, but it’s the writer who gets the blame. If the film does well, then the director gets the credit.
So-called reputable film critics regularly lambaste the state of British screenwriting but when was the last time they read a script? Would they know a good screenplay if it came up and said ‘hello’? What do they know or appreciate about the craft of good screenwriting? And do they really differentiate the writer’s skill from the director’s vision? And as Jeff Jarvis writes in the Guardian, do we really need critics anymore?
However, critic response is umbilically linked to audience reaction. We can go to see a film and be mad as hell at the poor quality of the story, and wonder ‘what the hell happened to the script?’ But what do we know about the film’s development? What was it about the original script that got the producers, directors and cast involved? There must have been something, right? The industry wants to make money, not piss people off. Nevertheless, the desire and ability to make money through films also comes with ego and insecurity. People in powerful positions will meddle with a script in their efforts to either second guess the audience or satisfy their own ego. Let’s not be too hasty to blame the writer.
The problem with poor films is that it encourages aspiring writers to churn out mediocre material. If their script is ‘just as good’ than the latest UK flick that bombed at the box office, then why shouldn’t they get a shot at the big time? That’s hardly valid reasoning though. Why should we get a break just because our work is as bland and average as the latest release. We should continue to strive for the highest quality in our work; scripts that contain the writer’s unique voice, a story with something to say and characters with a refreshing heart and humanity. Then we could rid the criticism against UK screenwriters forever.
This may come as a bit of surprise but the state of UK screenwriting is extremely healthy. There are a lot of talented writers out there and they fall into three categories: Well Known, Making a Good Living and Breaking Through. The well known writers are leading the way for box office success, at home and abroad. People like Richard Curtis, Simon Pegg & Edgar Wright, Purvis & Wade, Frank Cottrell Boyce etc.
Some writers will flirt between the ‘well known’ and ‘making a good living’ categories; Paul Laverty, Mellis & Scinto, William Nicholson, William Osborne etc. And then there’s the ‘breaking through’ group where, well, the list is endless. Most UK screenwriters reside in this category and this is the group that’s referred to whenever the system comes under criticism. Their work may vary from glimpses of brilliance to frustratingly bad, and possibly both in one sitting.
However, the assertion that most UK movies seem very “clunky” is an unfair criticism aimed at the writer. There are a host of changes, alterations and amendments that can occur during the development and filmmaking process, some or most of which won’t be approved by the writer, or the poor scribe won’t even be consulted. Producers, directors, script editors and actors occasionally make the wrong choices, and a script suffers, but it’s the writer who gets the blame. If the film does well, then the director gets the credit.
So-called reputable film critics regularly lambaste the state of British screenwriting but when was the last time they read a script? Would they know a good screenplay if it came up and said ‘hello’? What do they know or appreciate about the craft of good screenwriting? And do they really differentiate the writer’s skill from the director’s vision? And as Jeff Jarvis writes in the Guardian, do we really need critics anymore?
However, critic response is umbilically linked to audience reaction. We can go to see a film and be mad as hell at the poor quality of the story, and wonder ‘what the hell happened to the script?’ But what do we know about the film’s development? What was it about the original script that got the producers, directors and cast involved? There must have been something, right? The industry wants to make money, not piss people off. Nevertheless, the desire and ability to make money through films also comes with ego and insecurity. People in powerful positions will meddle with a script in their efforts to either second guess the audience or satisfy their own ego. Let’s not be too hasty to blame the writer.
The problem with poor films is that it encourages aspiring writers to churn out mediocre material. If their script is ‘just as good’ than the latest UK flick that bombed at the box office, then why shouldn’t they get a shot at the big time? That’s hardly valid reasoning though. Why should we get a break just because our work is as bland and average as the latest release. We should continue to strive for the highest quality in our work; scripts that contain the writer’s unique voice, a story with something to say and characters with a refreshing heart and humanity. Then we could rid the criticism against UK screenwriters forever.
Kamis, 03 Agustus 2006
How To Be a Better Writer, Part 1
In this day and age, the English language is in decline. Or some would say that it's changing, morphing into a new 21st century vernacular full of txt messages, c u later and colloquial slang. Change is all right, change is good. New terms, phrases and freestyle grammar has its place. But let's not get carried away. This is fine for the next generation of teens, footballers and their wives (have you noticed that foreign footballers speak English with more elegance and awareness than the English footballers?) but it's not quite the same for writers.
Literature has started to embrace the new forms and styles emerging for the mouths of babes (books with just an email narrative, text messages, slang etc) but the authors usually possess a good command on English in order for them to playfully indulge in the new methods of communication. There's no point advancing with speech when you've forgotten the basic foundations of the language.
So, in the first of a new series of how to make ourselves better writers, it's back to the basics. Grammar. This extract is taken from The Times Writer's Guide; there's a link at the bottom to Amazon where you can/should buy this comprehensive and accessible manual.
The Thirteen Gremlins of Grammar
1. Correct speling is essential.
2. Don't use no double negatives.
3. Verbs has got to agree with their subjects.
4. Don't write run-on sentences they are hard to read.
5. About them sentence fragments.
6. Don't use commas, that aren't necessary.
7. A preposition is not a good word to end a sentence with.
8. Remember to not ever split infinitives.
9. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
10. Alway's use apostrophe's correctly.
11. Make each singular pronoun agree with their antecedents.
12. Join clauses good, like a conjunction should.
13. Proofread your writing to make sure you don't words out.
And, above all, avoid clichés like the plague.
From The Times Writer's Guide
--- UPDATE ---
A couple of other things.
First, John Yorke (BBC Controller of Continuing Drama Series and Head of Independent Drama, phew) gives a video interview at the BBC writersroom. Check it out. It's seven minutes long.
Staying with the writersroom, I saw this at English Dave's blog but they want to spread the word so:
Q&A: Writing for the BBC 2pm - 3.30pm Tuesday 15 August, Screen 3, Filmhouse
Interested in writing for the BBC? Want to find out about opportunities with BBC Scotland's Drama Department? Come along and put your questions on writing for BBC TV, Film and Radio to Kate Rowland, the BBC's Creative Director, New Writing, Anne Mensah, Head of Drama, BBC Scotland and Sandra MacIver, Executive Producer River City.
There will be an announcement about several forthcoming TV writing opportunities open to new writers. Free tickets can be reserved by phone 0131 228 4051 or in person at the Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ. Capacity is limited so book early!
Literature has started to embrace the new forms and styles emerging for the mouths of babes (books with just an email narrative, text messages, slang etc) but the authors usually possess a good command on English in order for them to playfully indulge in the new methods of communication. There's no point advancing with speech when you've forgotten the basic foundations of the language.
So, in the first of a new series of how to make ourselves better writers, it's back to the basics. Grammar. This extract is taken from The Times Writer's Guide; there's a link at the bottom to Amazon where you can/should buy this comprehensive and accessible manual.
The Thirteen Gremlins of Grammar
1. Correct speling is essential.
2. Don't use no double negatives.
3. Verbs has got to agree with their subjects.
4. Don't write run-on sentences they are hard to read.
5. About them sentence fragments.
6. Don't use commas, that aren't necessary.
7. A preposition is not a good word to end a sentence with.
8. Remember to not ever split infinitives.
9. Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.
10. Alway's use apostrophe's correctly.
11. Make each singular pronoun agree with their antecedents.
12. Join clauses good, like a conjunction should.
13. Proofread your writing to make sure you don't words out.
And, above all, avoid clichés like the plague.
From The Times Writer's Guide
--- UPDATE ---
A couple of other things.
First, John Yorke (BBC Controller of Continuing Drama Series and Head of Independent Drama, phew) gives a video interview at the BBC writersroom. Check it out. It's seven minutes long.
Staying with the writersroom, I saw this at English Dave's blog but they want to spread the word so:
Q&A: Writing for the BBC 2pm - 3.30pm Tuesday 15 August, Screen 3, Filmhouse
Interested in writing for the BBC? Want to find out about opportunities with BBC Scotland's Drama Department? Come along and put your questions on writing for BBC TV, Film and Radio to Kate Rowland, the BBC's Creative Director, New Writing, Anne Mensah, Head of Drama, BBC Scotland and Sandra MacIver, Executive Producer River City.
There will be an announcement about several forthcoming TV writing opportunities open to new writers. Free tickets can be reserved by phone 0131 228 4051 or in person at the Filmhouse, 88 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9BZ. Capacity is limited so book early!
Selasa, 01 Agustus 2006
Step Into Another Dimension
The quality of the spec pile is improving. Despite contrary belief, aspiring screenwriters aren’t stupid. They’re attending the seminars, reading the books, analysing the films. They’re getting better. Screenplay craft and its application has become common knowledge, even for those with just a passing interest in the medium.
Of course, there is still a lot of stuff out there that ranges from bad to mediocre, and this will continue to give the spec pile a bad name. There are many scripts that vary from good to excellent (although the latter category is subjectively rare) and these screenplays are often on a par with films that are already in production or enjoying current release.
The overall improvement in the spec pile is both reassuring and disappointing. The general advance in quality comes from a good appreciation of craft. Writers know their three-act structure and how to execute it with pinpoint precision. They’re aware of set-ups and pay-offs. A great opening sequence. A good ending. Style, tone, structure. Check. At the very least, scripts are better written than they ever were before. What’s disappointing about this progress is that the characters in the scripts fail to emotionally engage, and this leads to the regular rejection on the script’s coverage.
It seems that new writers have developed a knack for writing serviceable screenplays but they’re not writing interesting characters to fulfil their respective stories. And this, above all else
, is what matters in a script. Forget about the long list of disposable films that would offer a sound argument against the statement. They’re nothing to do with you or me. In the spec pile, you’re judged by the quality of your craft but also by how well your story engages the reader on an emotional level. This is achieved through the script’s cast of characters, and how well they are defined and developed.
Characters fulfil a certain role or duty in a story. The protagonist. Chirpy sidekick. Love interest. Villain. Best friend. Boss. Parent. Whatever. A script reader’s seen them all, just as much as a cinema audience. What we’re looking for is something new, fresh and distinctive. We don’t want to see characters behave in the same stereotypical way based on their role in the story. But that’s what happens all the time. The hero is the hero, flawless and brave. The sidekick is comic and supportive, and might even die for his trouble. The love interest’s romance is assured from the outset. The boss is unfair. The parent doesn’t understand. And so it goes…
Superior screenplay craft will ensure an easy read and an appreciative response from a reader but a story with only one or two dimensions of character will leave the reader dissatisfied and unimpressed with the script’s emotional range. Three-dimensional characters are considered favourable but this isn’t entirely true anymore because we can usually predict a character’s behaviour or response from his general characterisation in the story.
What’s desirable now, but more difficult to achieve, is the multi-dimensional character: complex emotional people where their behaviour can’t be easily categorised or predicted. This isn’t meant to encourage erratic or uneven conduct. Quite the opposite. It’s meant to establish a range of conflicting emotions and challenges for the characters to experience. This extra dimension of character is usually borne out of the writer’s particular insight into the situation. It will probably avoid cliché and predictability, and enrich the character’s emotional development with the difficult choice that he/she has to make. ‘Enrich’ doesn’t necessarily mean a positive outcome for the character; it could be a detrimental action that increases the story’s emotional or dramatic appeal.
Due to the particular demand of screenplay craft, getting a multi-dimensional character down on the page is tough. A well-written script with effective emotional characters mightn’t be as obvious or appealing because of what the writer hasn’t written
, and what’s left to the subtext. You just have to trust the reader’s instincts and awareness, something that may not be in evidence if it’s an inexperienced intern.
And then there’s what an actor can bring to the part. What really wasn’t on the page is suddenly lifted into a whole new emotional character dimension because of the actor’s particular talents. But for the moment let’s just assume we’re lazing in the spec pile, a million miles away from actors and directors on set. It’s our job to give the characters a chance to breathe and develop; to react and respond to the story on an emotional and practical level.
Whether it’s a genre movie or a more personal piece, the characters have to ring true and be consistent. Think of the best and most lauded genre movies: they all have great characters. And, more importantly, they all have interesting personal stuff going on that had to be dealt with in the course of the film’s plot. Star Wars, Back to the Future, Jaws, Raiders, Shaun of the Dead, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Full Monty, Billy Elliot.
Well-defined characters. Multi-dimensional. Emotional. Human. Real. That’s the secret to screenwriting success. Craft has a lot to do with it but if the characters don’t engage, excite, inspire or amuse, then they’re probably serving the plot in a two-dimensional fashion rather than driving the narrative with their multi-dimensional needs.
Treat characters with care and respect. Explore other decisions or reactions that they might make: more complex and emotional rather than easy and predictable. It will help to defy a reader’s expectation but also increase the emotional attachment to the story because of the characters’ interesting and unexpected behaviour.
Of course, there is still a lot of stuff out there that ranges from bad to mediocre, and this will continue to give the spec pile a bad name. There are many scripts that vary from good to excellent (although the latter category is subjectively rare) and these screenplays are often on a par with films that are already in production or enjoying current release.
The overall improvement in the spec pile is both reassuring and disappointing. The general advance in quality comes from a good appreciation of craft. Writers know their three-act structure and how to execute it with pinpoint precision. They’re aware of set-ups and pay-offs. A great opening sequence. A good ending. Style, tone, structure. Check. At the very least, scripts are better written than they ever were before. What’s disappointing about this progress is that the characters in the scripts fail to emotionally engage, and this leads to the regular rejection on the script’s coverage.
It seems that new writers have developed a knack for writing serviceable screenplays but they’re not writing interesting characters to fulfil their respective stories. And this, above all else
, is what matters in a script. Forget about the long list of disposable films that would offer a sound argument against the statement. They’re nothing to do with you or me. In the spec pile, you’re judged by the quality of your craft but also by how well your story engages the reader on an emotional level. This is achieved through the script’s cast of characters, and how well they are defined and developed.
Characters fulfil a certain role or duty in a story. The protagonist. Chirpy sidekick. Love interest. Villain. Best friend. Boss. Parent. Whatever. A script reader’s seen them all, just as much as a cinema audience. What we’re looking for is something new, fresh and distinctive. We don’t want to see characters behave in the same stereotypical way based on their role in the story. But that’s what happens all the time. The hero is the hero, flawless and brave. The sidekick is comic and supportive, and might even die for his trouble. The love interest’s romance is assured from the outset. The boss is unfair. The parent doesn’t understand. And so it goes…
Superior screenplay craft will ensure an easy read and an appreciative response from a reader but a story with only one or two dimensions of character will leave the reader dissatisfied and unimpressed with the script’s emotional range. Three-dimensional characters are considered favourable but this isn’t entirely true anymore because we can usually predict a character’s behaviour or response from his general characterisation in the story.
What’s desirable now, but more difficult to achieve, is the multi-dimensional character: complex emotional people where their behaviour can’t be easily categorised or predicted. This isn’t meant to encourage erratic or uneven conduct. Quite the opposite. It’s meant to establish a range of conflicting emotions and challenges for the characters to experience. This extra dimension of character is usually borne out of the writer’s particular insight into the situation. It will probably avoid cliché and predictability, and enrich the character’s emotional development with the difficult choice that he/she has to make. ‘Enrich’ doesn’t necessarily mean a positive outcome for the character; it could be a detrimental action that increases the story’s emotional or dramatic appeal.
Due to the particular demand of screenplay craft, getting a multi-dimensional character down on the page is tough. A well-written script with effective emotional characters mightn’t be as obvious or appealing because of what the writer hasn’t written
, and what’s left to the subtext. You just have to trust the reader’s instincts and awareness, something that may not be in evidence if it’s an inexperienced intern.
And then there’s what an actor can bring to the part. What really wasn’t on the page is suddenly lifted into a whole new emotional character dimension because of the actor’s particular talents. But for the moment let’s just assume we’re lazing in the spec pile, a million miles away from actors and directors on set. It’s our job to give the characters a chance to breathe and develop; to react and respond to the story on an emotional and practical level.
Whether it’s a genre movie or a more personal piece, the characters have to ring true and be consistent. Think of the best and most lauded genre movies: they all have great characters. And, more importantly, they all have interesting personal stuff going on that had to be dealt with in the course of the film’s plot. Star Wars, Back to the Future, Jaws, Raiders, Shaun of the Dead, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Full Monty, Billy Elliot.
Well-defined characters. Multi-dimensional. Emotional. Human. Real. That’s the secret to screenwriting success. Craft has a lot to do with it but if the characters don’t engage, excite, inspire or amuse, then they’re probably serving the plot in a two-dimensional fashion rather than driving the narrative with their multi-dimensional needs.
Treat characters with care and respect. Explore other decisions or reactions that they might make: more complex and emotional rather than easy and predictable. It will help to defy a reader’s expectation but also increase the emotional attachment to the story because of the characters’ interesting and unexpected behaviour.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)