Are We Officially Dating?

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A group of 20-somethings must deal with the ever-complicated logistics of commitment.
About: Are We Officially Dating made the 2010 Black List, landing somewhere near the middle of the pack. Thomas Gormican, the writer, graduated from Brown University. He began his career at GreeneStreet Films in New York City. Afterwards, he partnered with Charles Wessler and the Farrelly Brothers to produce a short-films-compilation (Movie 43) in the vein of The Kentucky Fried Movie, to be financed and distributed by Overture Films.
Writer: Thomas Gormican
Details: 112 pages – 10-22-10 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

 Would James Franco make a good Jason?

The male bachelor afraid of commitment sub-genre is probably the most crowded sub-genre in the spec screenplay market. Makes sense, right? There are a lot of males between the ages of 20-30 writing screenplays. It’s only natural, then, that they write about what males between the ages of 20-30 think about. For that reason, if you’re going to add your name to this list, you better make sure your script is one of two things: 1) very well written or 2) a completely new take on the genre. I always advocate for #2, since people are more likely to pass around something that’s fresh and original. If you’re going to go with #1 though, know this: Even if you execute your story to perfection, there’s still a good chance it’s never going to be seen as anything other than an average comedy, and that’s exactly what we have here with “Are We Officially Dating?”

Jason is 28 years old, charming, handsome, and deathly afraid of commitment. He’s specifically afraid of the “So…” I think we all know the “So…” The “So” is when a woman has had enough of the fun, and after a particularly enjoyable sexual encounter sneaks in, “So….where is this going?” Yeah, Jason would rather sleep in an oven than deal with the “So…” So, as soon as a relationship gets to that border between fun and serious (The Great Wall of Commitment?) he bails.

Completing the bachelorhood lifestyle are Jason’s two best friends. There’s Mikey, a doctor whose wife just started banging their lawyer. Because Mikey has little respect for himself, he still allows her to use him for medical advice. Then there’s Daniel, whose best friend Chelsea is “one of the guys.” But when he sleeps with her, he too must deal with the question of whether to commit or keep it casual.

Jason’s problems start when he takes the cute Ellie home for a night of sexual adventure, only to realize she’s a hooker, only to later realize she’s not a hooker. They start hanging out, having fun, and in between these fun escapades, the guys, a la a younger better looking Seinfeld cast, discuss their predicaments in comedic detail.

Eventually Jason starts falling for Ellie, but when she gives him the “So…” he freaks out and tells her he can’t make a commitment. Jason then learns that Ellie is seeing a hot new author (both characters work in the publishing industry) and of course realizes that he loves her. He then becomes Stalk Machine 3000, breaking down cryptic updates on Ellie’s Facebook page like archeologists would hieroglyphics, eventually getting to the point where, as one of his friends puts it, he “looks like somebody Jamie Foxx would play in a movie.”

Jason has to pull it together to win Ellie back but there’s a chance he’s gone too far and that he’ll never experience the joy of a loving committed relationship.

 Maybe Blake Lively for Ellie?

I don’t have anything against “Are We Officially Dating?” There aren’t any big problems here. There’s a nice work goal that keeps the story on track. There’s plenty of conflict between the three pairs of characters. The dialogue is decent. The comedy wasn’t suited to me but I definitely laughed. What plagues “Dating” in my opinion is that there’s nothing new about it. I’ve read this exact kind of script two hundred times before. Was Gormican’s version of the story better than those other 200? It was better than most. But even though well-written, you can only read the same story so many times before it stops affecting you (and hence, another argument why you should find a fresh take on the genre).

There were some smaller issues here for me. Ellie isn’t a very exciting character. One of the things I constantly see in these male-written rom-coms – especially ones which sympathize with the male hero’s fear of commitment – is that the female leads aren’t very strong. And I’d probably make that argument here. Ellie is treated more as an ideal than a character. The focus is on what the guys think of her, of their situation, and of the developments on Jason’s side of the relationship, rather than Ellie herself. This is particularly true later on, when Ellie disappears for most of the third act. We’re focused more on Jason going crazy than what’s going on with Ellie.  For this reason (spoiler!), when he gets her in the end, we don't feel it, cause we don't really know the girl. 

I also found it strange that Jason was pursuing Ellie early on, despite the fact that he so adamantly didn’t want a relationship. The explanation we’re given for his contradictory actions is that he “wants her on the roster,” though it’s never explained what that means. So it felt like a cheat.

A lot of you are probably wondering, “Well then how did this get on the Black List?” It’s a fair question. I think it’s because it gets all the little things right. A big problem I see in amateur scripts is that writers don’t know how to get the script to the point where it’s being judged solely on the story. They haven’t learned all the little things required to make the story stand on its own.

For example, they may not know how to set up their main character. When we meet your main character, you need to tell us exactly who that character is, what their strength is, what their flaw is, what the central problem in their life is. We need to know this so we understand what it is our character will need to overcome during the course of the story.

I don’t see that in a lot of amateur scripts. Instead I see character introductions with our protagonist doing arbitrary things that tell us very little if anything about the character. The writer erroneously assumes that since *they* know who their character is, that it will just magically leak out onto the page. But it doesn’t work that way, and as a result, the whole movie’s point is muddled. We don’t know who our main character is, why they’re existing, what they’re trying to overcome, and how it relates to the plot, because nobody’s ever told us. I see this ALL. THE. TIME.

Are We Officially Dating begins with Jason explaining exactly what’s wrong with him. He’s a commitment-phobe. He avoids relationships. There isn’t a single doubt in our mind what’s going on with this character after that scene. And I realize that Gormican chooses to TELL us and not SHOW us this information (we can debate that another day), but the point is, when that opening scene is over, you don’t have any doubt in your mind who Jason is – and that’s important.

There are a lot of little things like that in a screenplay that you have to get right JUST TO HAVE YOUR STORY MAKE SENSE TO THE READER. And that’s why a lot of amateur scripts don’t stack up to “Are We Officially Dating?” even though there’s nothing particularly new going on here.

These are always the toughest reviews for me to write, because the script didn’t make me feel anything one way or the other. It showed a good command of the craft, but that’s about it.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Up above, I went on a long rant about making sure we know who your main character is in his introductory scene. Well, I wanted to make sure you knew that there are times when you DON’T want to do this. In particular, when your character has a deep mysterious background. So say you’re writing a Western and start on a drifter riding into town. The appeal of this character might be his mystery. It might be counter-productive, then, to tell us everything about him right away. Instead, you'll want to install little pieces of his backstory and problems throughout the story.  Just make sure that the revelations about his secret past are worthy of being initially kept from us (in other words, make sure they're damn interesting).

Are We Officially Dating?

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A group of 20-somethings must deal with the ever-complicated logistics of commitment.
About: Are We Officially Dating made the 2010 Black List, landing somewhere near the middle of the pack. Thomas Gormican, the writer, graduated from Brown University. He began his career at GreeneStreet Films in New York City. Afterwards, he partnered with Charles Wessler and the Farrelly Brothers to produce a short-films-compilation (Movie 43) in the vein of The Kentucky Fried Movie, to be financed and distributed by Overture Films.
Writer: Thomas Gormican
Details: 112 pages – 10-22-10 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

 Would James Franco make a good Jason?

The male bachelor afraid of commitment sub-genre is probably the most crowded sub-genre in the spec screenplay market. Makes sense, right? There are a lot of males between the ages of 20-30 writing screenplays. It’s only natural, then, that they write about what males between the ages of 20-30 think about. For that reason, if you’re going to add your name to this list, you better make sure your script is one of two things: 1) very well written or 2) a completely new take on the genre. I always advocate for #2, since people are more likely to pass around something that’s fresh and original. If you’re going to go with #1 though, know this: Even if you execute your story to perfection, there’s still a good chance it’s never going to be seen as anything other than an average comedy, and that’s exactly what we have here with “Are We Officially Dating?”

Jason is 28 years old, charming, handsome, and deathly afraid of commitment. He’s specifically afraid of the “So…” I think we all know the “So…” The “So” is when a woman has had enough of the fun, and after a particularly enjoyable sexual encounter sneaks in, “So….where is this going?” Yeah, Jason would rather sleep in an oven than deal with the “So…” So, as soon as a relationship gets to that border between fun and serious (The Great Wall of Commitment?) he bails.

Completing the bachelorhood lifestyle are Jason’s two best friends. There’s Mikey, a doctor whose wife just started banging their lawyer. Because Mikey has little respect for himself, he still allows her to use him for medical advice. Then there’s Daniel, whose best friend Chelsea is “one of the guys.” But when he sleeps with her, he too must deal with the question of whether to commit or keep it casual.

Jason’s problems start when he takes the cute Ellie home for a night of sexual adventure, only to realize she’s a hooker, only to later realize she’s not a hooker. They start hanging out, having fun, and in between these fun escapades, the guys, a la a younger better looking Seinfeld cast, discuss their predicaments in comedic detail.

Eventually Jason starts falling for Ellie, but when she gives him the “So…” he freaks out and tells her he can’t make a commitment. Jason then learns that Ellie is seeing a hot new author (both characters work in the publishing industry) and of course realizes that he loves her. He then becomes Stalk Machine 3000, breaking down cryptic updates on Ellie’s Facebook page like archeologists would hieroglyphics, eventually getting to the point where, as one of his friends puts it, he “looks like somebody Jamie Foxx would play in a movie.”

Jason has to pull it together to win Ellie back but there’s a chance he’s gone too far and that he’ll never experience the joy of a loving committed relationship.

 Maybe Blake Lively for Ellie?

I don’t have anything against “Are We Officially Dating?” There aren’t any big problems here. There’s a nice work goal that keeps the story on track. There’s plenty of conflict between the three pairs of characters. The dialogue is decent. The comedy wasn’t suited to me but I definitely laughed. What plagues “Dating” in my opinion is that there’s nothing new about it. I’ve read this exact kind of script two hundred times before. Was Gormican’s version of the story better than those other 200? It was better than most. But even though well-written, you can only read the same story so many times before it stops affecting you (and hence, another argument why you should find a fresh take on the genre).

There were some smaller issues here for me. Ellie isn’t a very exciting character. One of the things I constantly see in these male-written rom-coms – especially ones which sympathize with the male hero’s fear of commitment – is that the female leads aren’t very strong. And I’d probably make that argument here. Ellie is treated more as an ideal than a character. The focus is on what the guys think of her, of their situation, and of the developments on Jason’s side of the relationship, rather than Ellie herself. This is particularly true later on, when Ellie disappears for most of the third act. We’re focused more on Jason going crazy than what’s going on with Ellie.  For this reason (spoiler!), when he gets her in the end, we don't feel it, cause we don't really know the girl. 

I also found it strange that Jason was pursuing Ellie early on, despite the fact that he so adamantly didn’t want a relationship. The explanation we’re given for his contradictory actions is that he “wants her on the roster,” though it’s never explained what that means. So it felt like a cheat.

A lot of you are probably wondering, “Well then how did this get on the Black List?” It’s a fair question. I think it’s because it gets all the little things right. A big problem I see in amateur scripts is that writers don’t know how to get the script to the point where it’s being judged solely on the story. They haven’t learned all the little things required to make the story stand on its own.

For example, they may not know how to set up their main character. When we meet your main character, you need to tell us exactly who that character is, what their strength is, what their flaw is, what the central problem in their life is. We need to know this so we understand what it is our character will need to overcome during the course of the story.

I don’t see that in a lot of amateur scripts. Instead I see character introductions with our protagonist doing arbitrary things that tell us very little if anything about the character. The writer erroneously assumes that since *they* know who their character is, that it will just magically leak out onto the page. But it doesn’t work that way, and as a result, the whole movie’s point is muddled. We don’t know who our main character is, why they’re existing, what they’re trying to overcome, and how it relates to the plot, because nobody’s ever told us. I see this ALL. THE. TIME.

Are We Officially Dating begins with Jason explaining exactly what’s wrong with him. He’s a commitment-phobe. He avoids relationships. There isn’t a single doubt in our mind what’s going on with this character after that scene. And I realize that Gormican chooses to TELL us and not SHOW us this information (we can debate that another day), but the point is, when that opening scene is over, you don’t have any doubt in your mind who Jason is – and that’s important.

There are a lot of little things like that in a screenplay that you have to get right JUST TO HAVE YOUR STORY MAKE SENSE TO THE READER. And that’s why a lot of amateur scripts don’t stack up to “Are We Officially Dating?” even though there’s nothing particularly new going on here.

These are always the toughest reviews for me to write, because the script didn’t make me feel anything one way or the other. It showed a good command of the craft, but that’s about it.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Up above, I went on a long rant about making sure we know who your main character is in his introductory scene. Well, I wanted to make sure you knew that there are times when you DON’T want to do this. In particular, when your character has a deep mysterious background. So say you’re writing a Western and start on a drifter riding into town. The appeal of this character might be his mystery. It might be counter-productive, then, to tell us everything about him right away. Instead, you'll want to install little pieces of his backstory and problems throughout the story.  Just make sure that the revelations about his secret past are worthy of being initially kept from us (in other words, make sure they're damn interesting).

Are We Officially Dating?

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A group of 20-somethings must deal with the ever-complicated logistics of commitment.
About: Are We Officially Dating made the 2010 Black List, landing somewhere near the middle of the pack. Thomas Gormican, the writer, graduated from Brown University. He began his career at GreeneStreet Films in New York City. Afterwards, he partnered with Charles Wessler and the Farrelly Brothers to produce a short-films-compilation (Movie 43) in the vein of The Kentucky Fried Movie, to be financed and distributed by Overture Films.
Writer: Thomas Gormican
Details: 112 pages – 10-22-10 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

 Would James Franco make a good Jason?

The male bachelor afraid of commitment sub-genre is probably the most crowded sub-genre in the spec screenplay market. Makes sense, right? There are a lot of males between the ages of 20-30 writing screenplays. It’s only natural, then, that they write about what males between the ages of 20-30 think about. For that reason, if you’re going to add your name to this list, you better make sure your script is one of two things: 1) very well written or 2) a completely new take on the genre. I always advocate for #2, since people are more likely to pass around something that’s fresh and original. If you’re going to go with #1 though, know this: Even if you execute your story to perfection, there’s still a good chance it’s never going to be seen as anything other than an average comedy, and that’s exactly what we have here with “Are We Officially Dating?”

Jason is 28 years old, charming, handsome, and deathly afraid of commitment. He’s specifically afraid of the “So…” I think we all know the “So…” The “So” is when a woman has had enough of the fun, and after a particularly enjoyable sexual encounter sneaks in, “So….where is this going?” Yeah, Jason would rather sleep in an oven than deal with the “So…” So, as soon as a relationship gets to that border between fun and serious (The Great Wall of Commitment?) he bails.

Completing the bachelorhood lifestyle are Jason’s two best friends. There’s Mikey, a doctor whose wife just started banging their lawyer. Because Mikey has little respect for himself, he still allows her to use him for medical advice. Then there’s Daniel, whose best friend Chelsea is “one of the guys.” But when he sleeps with her, he too must deal with the question of whether to commit or keep it casual.

Jason’s problems start when he takes the cute Ellie home for a night of sexual adventure, only to realize she’s a hooker, only to later realize she’s not a hooker. They start hanging out, having fun, and in between these fun escapades, the guys, a la a younger better looking Seinfeld cast, discuss their predicaments in comedic detail.

Eventually Jason starts falling for Ellie, but when she gives him the “So…” he freaks out and tells her he can’t make a commitment. Jason then learns that Ellie is seeing a hot new author (both characters work in the publishing industry) and of course realizes that he loves her. He then becomes Stalk Machine 3000, breaking down cryptic updates on Ellie’s Facebook page like archeologists would hieroglyphics, eventually getting to the point where, as one of his friends puts it, he “looks like somebody Jamie Foxx would play in a movie.”

Jason has to pull it together to win Ellie back but there’s a chance he’s gone too far and that he’ll never experience the joy of a loving committed relationship.

 Maybe Blake Lively for Ellie?

I don’t have anything against “Are We Officially Dating?” There aren’t any big problems here. There’s a nice work goal that keeps the story on track. There’s plenty of conflict between the three pairs of characters. The dialogue is decent. The comedy wasn’t suited to me but I definitely laughed. What plagues “Dating” in my opinion is that there’s nothing new about it. I’ve read this exact kind of script two hundred times before. Was Gormican’s version of the story better than those other 200? It was better than most. But even though well-written, you can only read the same story so many times before it stops affecting you (and hence, another argument why you should find a fresh take on the genre).

There were some smaller issues here for me. Ellie isn’t a very exciting character. One of the things I constantly see in these male-written rom-coms – especially ones which sympathize with the male hero’s fear of commitment – is that the female leads aren’t very strong. And I’d probably make that argument here. Ellie is treated more as an ideal than a character. The focus is on what the guys think of her, of their situation, and of the developments on Jason’s side of the relationship, rather than Ellie herself. This is particularly true later on, when Ellie disappears for most of the third act. We’re focused more on Jason going crazy than what’s going on with Ellie.  For this reason (spoiler!), when he gets her in the end, we don't feel it, cause we don't really know the girl. 

I also found it strange that Jason was pursuing Ellie early on, despite the fact that he so adamantly didn’t want a relationship. The explanation we’re given for his contradictory actions is that he “wants her on the roster,” though it’s never explained what that means. So it felt like a cheat.

A lot of you are probably wondering, “Well then how did this get on the Black List?” It’s a fair question. I think it’s because it gets all the little things right. A big problem I see in amateur scripts is that writers don’t know how to get the script to the point where it’s being judged solely on the story. They haven’t learned all the little things required to make the story stand on its own.

For example, they may not know how to set up their main character. When we meet your main character, you need to tell us exactly who that character is, what their strength is, what their flaw is, what the central problem in their life is. We need to know this so we understand what it is our character will need to overcome during the course of the story.

I don’t see that in a lot of amateur scripts. Instead I see character introductions with our protagonist doing arbitrary things that tell us very little if anything about the character. The writer erroneously assumes that since *they* know who their character is, that it will just magically leak out onto the page. But it doesn’t work that way, and as a result, the whole movie’s point is muddled. We don’t know who our main character is, why they’re existing, what they’re trying to overcome, and how it relates to the plot, because nobody’s ever told us. I see this ALL. THE. TIME.

Are We Officially Dating begins with Jason explaining exactly what’s wrong with him. He’s a commitment-phobe. He avoids relationships. There isn’t a single doubt in our mind what’s going on with this character after that scene. And I realize that Gormican chooses to TELL us and not SHOW us this information (we can debate that another day), but the point is, when that opening scene is over, you don’t have any doubt in your mind who Jason is – and that’s important.

There are a lot of little things like that in a screenplay that you have to get right JUST TO HAVE YOUR STORY MAKE SENSE TO THE READER. And that’s why a lot of amateur scripts don’t stack up to “Are We Officially Dating?” even though there’s nothing particularly new going on here.

These are always the toughest reviews for me to write, because the script didn’t make me feel anything one way or the other. It showed a good command of the craft, but that’s about it.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Up above, I went on a long rant about making sure we know who your main character is in his introductory scene. Well, I wanted to make sure you knew that there are times when you DON’T want to do this. In particular, when your character has a deep mysterious background. So say you’re writing a Western and start on a drifter riding into town. The appeal of this character might be his mystery. It might be counter-productive, then, to tell us everything about him right away. Instead, you'll want to install little pieces of his backstory and problems throughout the story.  Just make sure that the revelations about his secret past are worthy of being initially kept from us (in other words, make sure they're damn interesting).

Are We Officially Dating?

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A group of 20-somethings must deal with the ever-complicated logistics of commitment.
About: Are We Officially Dating made the 2010 Black List, landing somewhere near the middle of the pack. Thomas Gormican, the writer, graduated from Brown University. He began his career at GreeneStreet Films in New York City. Afterwards, he partnered with Charles Wessler and the Farrelly Brothers to produce a short-films-compilation (Movie 43) in the vein of The Kentucky Fried Movie, to be financed and distributed by Overture Films.
Writer: Thomas Gormican
Details: 112 pages – 10-22-10 draft (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

 Would James Franco make a good Jason?

The male bachelor afraid of commitment sub-genre is probably the most crowded sub-genre in the spec screenplay market. Makes sense, right? There are a lot of males between the ages of 20-30 writing screenplays. It’s only natural, then, that they write about what males between the ages of 20-30 think about. For that reason, if you’re going to add your name to this list, you better make sure your script is one of two things: 1) very well written or 2) a completely new take on the genre. I always advocate for #2, since people are more likely to pass around something that’s fresh and original. If you’re going to go with #1 though, know this: Even if you execute your story to perfection, there’s still a good chance it’s never going to be seen as anything other than an average comedy, and that’s exactly what we have here with “Are We Officially Dating?”

Jason is 28 years old, charming, handsome, and deathly afraid of commitment. He’s specifically afraid of the “So…” I think we all know the “So…” The “So” is when a woman has had enough of the fun, and after a particularly enjoyable sexual encounter sneaks in, “So….where is this going?” Yeah, Jason would rather sleep in an oven than deal with the “So…” So, as soon as a relationship gets to that border between fun and serious (The Great Wall of Commitment?) he bails.

Completing the bachelorhood lifestyle are Jason’s two best friends. There’s Mikey, a doctor whose wife just started banging their lawyer. Because Mikey has little respect for himself, he still allows her to use him for medical advice. Then there’s Daniel, whose best friend Chelsea is “one of the guys.” But when he sleeps with her, he too must deal with the question of whether to commit or keep it casual.

Jason’s problems start when he takes the cute Ellie home for a night of sexual adventure, only to realize she’s a hooker, only to later realize she’s not a hooker. They start hanging out, having fun, and in between these fun escapades, the guys, a la a younger better looking Seinfeld cast, discuss their predicaments in comedic detail.

Eventually Jason starts falling for Ellie, but when she gives him the “So…” he freaks out and tells her he can’t make a commitment. Jason then learns that Ellie is seeing a hot new author (both characters work in the publishing industry) and of course realizes that he loves her. He then becomes Stalk Machine 3000, breaking down cryptic updates on Ellie’s Facebook page like archeologists would hieroglyphics, eventually getting to the point where, as one of his friends puts it, he “looks like somebody Jamie Foxx would play in a movie.”

Jason has to pull it together to win Ellie back but there’s a chance he’s gone too far and that he’ll never experience the joy of a loving committed relationship.

 Maybe Blake Lively for Ellie?

I don’t have anything against “Are We Officially Dating?” There aren’t any big problems here. There’s a nice work goal that keeps the story on track. There’s plenty of conflict between the three pairs of characters. The dialogue is decent. The comedy wasn’t suited to me but I definitely laughed. What plagues “Dating” in my opinion is that there’s nothing new about it. I’ve read this exact kind of script two hundred times before. Was Gormican’s version of the story better than those other 200? It was better than most. But even though well-written, you can only read the same story so many times before it stops affecting you (and hence, another argument why you should find a fresh take on the genre).

There were some smaller issues here for me. Ellie isn’t a very exciting character. One of the things I constantly see in these male-written rom-coms – especially ones which sympathize with the male hero’s fear of commitment – is that the female leads aren’t very strong. And I’d probably make that argument here. Ellie is treated more as an ideal than a character. The focus is on what the guys think of her, of their situation, and of the developments on Jason’s side of the relationship, rather than Ellie herself. This is particularly true later on, when Ellie disappears for most of the third act. We’re focused more on Jason going crazy than what’s going on with Ellie.  For this reason (spoiler!), when he gets her in the end, we don't feel it, cause we don't really know the girl. 

I also found it strange that Jason was pursuing Ellie early on, despite the fact that he so adamantly didn’t want a relationship. The explanation we’re given for his contradictory actions is that he “wants her on the roster,” though it’s never explained what that means. So it felt like a cheat.

A lot of you are probably wondering, “Well then how did this get on the Black List?” It’s a fair question. I think it’s because it gets all the little things right. A big problem I see in amateur scripts is that writers don’t know how to get the script to the point where it’s being judged solely on the story. They haven’t learned all the little things required to make the story stand on its own.

For example, they may not know how to set up their main character. When we meet your main character, you need to tell us exactly who that character is, what their strength is, what their flaw is, what the central problem in their life is. We need to know this so we understand what it is our character will need to overcome during the course of the story.

I don’t see that in a lot of amateur scripts. Instead I see character introductions with our protagonist doing arbitrary things that tell us very little if anything about the character. The writer erroneously assumes that since *they* know who their character is, that it will just magically leak out onto the page. But it doesn’t work that way, and as a result, the whole movie’s point is muddled. We don’t know who our main character is, why they’re existing, what they’re trying to overcome, and how it relates to the plot, because nobody’s ever told us. I see this ALL. THE. TIME.

Are We Officially Dating begins with Jason explaining exactly what’s wrong with him. He’s a commitment-phobe. He avoids relationships. There isn’t a single doubt in our mind what’s going on with this character after that scene. And I realize that Gormican chooses to TELL us and not SHOW us this information (we can debate that another day), but the point is, when that opening scene is over, you don’t have any doubt in your mind who Jason is – and that’s important.

There are a lot of little things like that in a screenplay that you have to get right JUST TO HAVE YOUR STORY MAKE SENSE TO THE READER. And that’s why a lot of amateur scripts don’t stack up to “Are We Officially Dating?” even though there’s nothing particularly new going on here.

These are always the toughest reviews for me to write, because the script didn’t make me feel anything one way or the other. It showed a good command of the craft, but that’s about it.

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Up above, I went on a long rant about making sure we know who your main character is in his introductory scene. Well, I wanted to make sure you knew that there are times when you DON’T want to do this. In particular, when your character has a deep mysterious background. So say you’re writing a Western and start on a drifter riding into town. The appeal of this character might be his mystery. It might be counter-productive, then, to tell us everything about him right away. Instead, you'll want to install little pieces of his backstory and problems throughout the story.  Just make sure that the revelations about his secret past are worthy of being initially kept from us (in other words, make sure they're damn interesting).

The Chad, Matt & Rob Interview: Part I - Breaking out on the web

There’s been a lot of talk about how the web is the new frontier for filmmakers. It could be not only the future of distribution, but also, a great way for developing talent to be noticed. Many aspiring talents have attempted this to varying degrees success, but likely many aspiring actors and filmmakers would envy comedy group “Chad, Matt & Rob.”

Performers Chad Villella, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, and Rob Polonsky have been making comedy shorts together since 2007, but really made their mark on the web in a big way in March 2008 with their viral hit “Roommate Alien Prank Goes Bad.” To date, the video has gotten a stunning 21 million views on YouTube. It was featured on Attack of the Show and was a selection at the 2008 San Diego Comic-Con International Film Festival.

Many of their other videos have view counts in the high hundreds of thousands, giving their entire portfolio over 44 million views on YouTube, with over 100,000 dedicated subscribers

Recent projects have seen the trio joined by co-director Tyler Gillett (Bettinelli-Olpin is the other co-director) and Justin Martinez, who serves as camera operator and the visual effects wizard.

On the eve of the release of their latest Interactive Adventure “The Treasure Hunt,” Chad, Matt, Rob and Tyler sat down with the Bitter Script Reader about their origins, their writing and production process, and how you could follow in their footsteps.

TBSR: So let’s dive right in – how did you three guys get together and decide you were gonna make stuff for the internet?

Rob: I met Chad at Groundings and Chad knew Matt from their acting class—

Matt: A place called “Actor’s Play Pen.”

Rob: And then there was the matter of saying “Hey, let’s do something and not talk about [doing] something so we did it.

TBSR: And that was “Good Roommates?”

Chad: We started with one before that called “A Terrible Place” that was---

Rob: Awful. It was a terrible video.

Chad: It was a terrible video!

Matt: We released it. It was actually on the front page of Funny or Die for a while.

Chad: Yeah, had about 4000 views on Funny or Die and were like [excited scream].

Tyler: Was it like a 13% or something?

Matt: It was kind of exciting for, like, a minute because that was three and a half years ago, so everything wasn’t a million views off the bat for anybody so it was like “4000 views?! That’s awesome! And then after a week we were like that [short] just sucks!”

Chad: “Let’s take it down.”

Tyler: I still haven’t seen this. I’ve requested to see this multiple times.

Rob: It’s the wrong aspect ratio—

Matt: I think it’s just bad. Has nothing to do with the aspect ratio.

Rob: If anything it was a good learning experience.

Matt: Then we made “Good Roommates” right after that.

TBSR: And was that one scripted or was that one you kind of had just the concept down and ran with it in front of the camera?

Matt: That was probably the most scripted [of our shorts] until “The Teleporter.”

(Laughs all around… for those not in the know, “The Teleporter” was the most recently shot – but not the most recently-released – project.)

TBSR: Do you prefer working that way? Starting with the broad idea and letting the dialogue come out of improvisation, letting the characters develop from your natural interaction?

Tyler: I would say that that has probably changed. “The Birthday Party” was a different story because the scenes weren’t that narratively complex. We could get away with that improvised style a little more. With “The Treasure Hunt” there’s much more of a high-concept story being told and much more of an arc and the edit has kinda been challenging. Because of the lack of scripting that we did, the edit has been more of a challenge. We actually had to take a step back and look at what the footage was telling us and not what we wanted the story to be. And it’s great that the “homegrown” feel is in the footage, but I’d never work like this again. This has been more of a lesson in editing than anything else. We could edit any project after cutting “The Treasure Hunt.”

TBSR: But before that, was the concept solid when you start, or do you often come to set and are still changing it around?

Matt: Like now?

TBSR: Like in the early days. Let’s go back to the time of “Good Roommates.”

Rob: Lots of emails, because we all had day jobs. So it’d be a constant email chain and from there we’d beat out an outline of what we saw doing

Matt: It’s funny, because actually I think “Good Roommates” was scripted, and then the next one that had a script was “Prison Break” because Tyler [Tuione, who plays a prison inmate] wanted one. So basically when we have an [outside] actor in it, it’s like “Where’s the script?” and we write a script for them.

Chad: Yeah, just for that part.

Matt: Up until “Treasure Hunt.” We wrote a script for Alfonso [Arau, who plays the villain] ---

Tyler: Which was super-essential. That’s why he got involved.

Matt: And we only scripted his scenes. And [the rest] was little slugs [that told the rest of the story.] Then as soon as we got to editing, we were like “Fucking A, we’re scripting everything from now on.” So for “The Teleporter,” we wrote the entire script. It was so much easier to shoot and to edit.

TBSR: And it only took three years to get there!

Rob: We learned!

TBSR: Did not having a script help you guys develop the characters on the early ones, because you weren’t locked into something and were able to discover the characters in the moment?

Tyler: I think that’s actually a great take on that.

Rob: And action! Instead of [the characters] just talking, we’re a big believer in doing, like starting with action.

Tyler: It activates things in a new way when it’s not just a staged, blocked situation. I think there’s an natural interpretation of how to move. It also shoots fast. It shoots - with the two cameras we’ve been using since “The Birthday Party” – really quick. We know right away when we’ve covered everything comedically. The edits are harder, but we shoot pretty fast.

TBSR: Because you guys must come in with a lot of footage.

Tyler: Tons and tons of footage.

Matt: And as far as the characters go, in terms of long-term not having scripts and stuff, if you watch our stuff from way back, you’ll see our characters forming. Like it wasn’t always the “Rob” character, the “Chad” character, the “Matt” character.

TBSR: At the time you started doing these shorts, it seemed like you were doing them ever two months or so---

Matt: About one every month and a half.

TBSR: And what was your goal then? Just to get something out on the internet? What was your game plan?

Matt & Rob: No idea! (all laugh)

Chad: The way we approach it – that’s why my character’s a little different from everyone – is that I wanted to use [the shorts] in a demo reel instead of having an actor’s demo reel… which I’ve never done! (all laugh)

Tyler: You guys were releasing that stuff before YouTube was even monotized. So I don’t think anybody but the people who worked at YouTube had any sense of what the future of that [medium] was gonna be. You guys were creating viral content before anyone was considering signing a web creator to a TV or movie deal. This was years before those dialogues.

TBSR: So this was not your bid to “We’re gonna put this out here, this is gonna get us discovered and this is gonna get us meetings?”

Matt: And I think part of it was we were at the point – I know Chad and I were – of “this could be our reel,” which is naïve in hindsight, but quickly that fell off. I’ve never made a reel.

TBSR: And at what point was it clear that this was getting you a solid following outside your circle of friends?

Rob: The Alien video [“Chad Hates Aliens” aka “Roommate Alien Prank Goes Bad.”]

Matt: For me it was “Good Roommates.” It got featured on MySpace, got like 10,000 views…

Rob: “Yeah! This is the best day ever! I’m famous!”

Chad: The first three or four videos were just on MySpace [at the time.]

Rob: We didn’t put anything on YouTube until after the Alien video got its first million hits on Break.com.

TBSR: And I do want to talk about “Chad Hates Aliens.” How long did that take you guys to shoot?

Matt: Two hours.

TBSR: And how long to come up with the idea?

Matt: Two days.

Rob: And it changed. It was originally something really stupid, like we were going to wake Chad up, “Hey Chad, we’re going to DisneyLand,” and then he gets out of bed and we hit him.

Matt: I don’t even remember that. But it was really quick. We didn’t really know what it was when we were shooting it. [We called our friend Jon Peele at the last moment] to hold the camera.

Chad: And Jessica did the blood make-up and held the spotlight out the window [to simulate the alien ship.]

Rob: And Jake held the alien.

Matt: That is… if it isn’t real.

Tyler: The cat’s out of the bag!

TBSR: So you put this up on Break.com and it took off extremely quickly.

Rob: It was featured on the front page and it got like a million views in one day.

TBSR: How does something end up on the front page of Break? Is there like a metric of how many views you get…?

Matt: No idea.

Rob: I think someone who works at Break monitors incoming videos and they saw “oh this is good,” and then they put it up on the front page.

Tyler: And that was a lot easier for people to do back then. There was less content to filter. Now they have departments focused on finding the next viral thing.

Rob: Now there’s what, 60 hours every minute being uploaded?

TBSR: And Break is where you picked up the bulk of your audience. And I remember it “Roommate Alien Prank Goes Bad” being covered on Attack of the Show within a few days of it being posted. What kind of reaction were you getting from it?

Rob: [Mostly] “Is that alien real?” emails. We’d get like 30 a day and still do.

Matt: Yeah, we still get ten [of those] a day.

TBSR: Is that the appeal of this one, that it looks like it could be real, and everyone passes it along because of that?

Tyler: I think that’s absolutely it. It’s the blend of comedy and horror too.

TBSR: And it’s very short. It’s like two and a half minutes.

Matt: It fits the internet window and the two emails we get more than anything ever are: “Oh, that’s so funny when they hit him in the head with the ironing board” and “Oh my god, is that real?” So it’s exactly that, people who think it’s funny that Chad gets hit in the face, or that it’s scary.

Tyler: It’s also so self-contained that the narrative doesn’t need to exist outside of what is shown. It’s so digestible, it’s like this little nugget of fun. That’s what viral videos were – these little self-contained pieces of entertainment that were between three and four minutes long.

Matt: As far as that video changing anything, I don’t think it did---

Chad: It did a little bit. Because we did get the one meeting with UTA, who suggested we come up with a webseries.

Matt: I think what changed for us then was we were like, “Let’s stop doing sketchy stuff and let’s start doing stories.” For us, once we did “Cops and Robbers” and “Danger Zone” they felt more like little stories, not so much like sketch comedy stuff. Which is where we’ve evolved. From “Birthday Party” and “Treasure Hunt” we’ve been like, push the story, push the story, push the story.”

Rob: That’s what we want to do. We want to tell a good story. We want to develop these awesome characters. We don’t want to do sketch comedy.

Tyler: And part of what sketch comedy is, is people playing different characters and what’s become great about this brand is that you guys are the characters and we now follow “Chad,” “Matt,” and “Rob” the characters through all these different adventures. So it feels like a series of stories.

TBSR: Like kind of a modern day Three Stooges in a way.

Tyler: Sure.

TBSR: Because one week the Stooges might be cops, another week they might be orderlies, but the characterizations would be consistent.

Matt: And that’s one thing we’ve started sticking with now.

Tyler: And how those characters specifically service the story. Who Matt is and what Matt does is absolutely essential for the scene going in this direction.

Matt: And that might be going against Rob’s character [who has a different agenda.]

Tyler: Rob is the instigator who starts shit. Rob is the plot.

TBSR: He always seems to be the catalyst. Have you broken it down into ID, EGO and SUPEREGO? because Rob is definitely ID.

(all laugh)

Part II - The Interactive Adventures
Part III - Producing web shorts

The Chad, Matt & Rob Interview: Part I - Breaking out on the web

There’s been a lot of talk about how the web is the new frontier for filmmakers. It could be not only the future of distribution, but also, a great way for developing talent to be noticed. Many aspiring talents have attempted this to varying degrees success, but likely many aspiring actors and filmmakers would envy comedy group “Chad, Matt & Rob.”

Performers Chad Villella, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, and Rob Polonsky have been making comedy shorts together since 2007, but really made their mark on the web in a big way in March 2008 with their viral hit “Roommate Alien Prank Goes Bad.” To date, the video has gotten a stunning 21 million views on YouTube. It was featured on Attack of the Show and was a selection at the 2008 San Diego Comic-Con International Film Festival.

Many of their other videos have view counts in the high hundreds of thousands, giving their entire portfolio over 44 million views on YouTube, with over 100,000 dedicated subscribers

Recent projects have seen the trio joined by co-director Tyler Gillett (Bettinelli-Olpin is the other co-director) and Justin Martinez, who serves as camera operator and the visual effects wizard.

On the eve of the release of their latest Interactive Adventure “The Treasure Hunt,” Chad, Matt, Rob and Tyler sat down with the Bitter Script Reader about their origins, their writing and production process, and how you could follow in their footsteps.

TBSR: So let’s dive right in – how did you three guys get together and decide you were gonna make stuff for the internet?

Rob: I met Chad at Groundings and Chad knew Matt from their acting class—

Matt: A place called “Actor’s Play Pen.”

Rob: And then there was the matter of saying “Hey, let’s do something and not talk about [doing] something so we did it.

TBSR: And that was “Good Roommates?”

Chad: We started with one before that called “A Terrible Place” that was---

Rob: Awful. It was a terrible video.

Chad: It was a terrible video!

Matt: We released it. It was actually on the front page of Funny or Die for a while.

Chad: Yeah, had about 4000 views on Funny or Die and were like [excited scream].

Tyler: Was it like a 13% or something?

Matt: It was kind of exciting for, like, a minute because that was three and a half years ago, so everything wasn’t a million views off the bat for anybody so it was like “4000 views?! That’s awesome! And then after a week we were like that [short] just sucks!”

Chad: “Let’s take it down.”

Tyler: I still haven’t seen this. I’ve requested to see this multiple times.

Rob: It’s the wrong aspect ratio—

Matt: I think it’s just bad. Has nothing to do with the aspect ratio.

Rob: If anything it was a good learning experience.

Matt: Then we made “Good Roommates” right after that.

TBSR: And was that one scripted or was that one you kind of had just the concept down and ran with it in front of the camera?

Matt: That was probably the most scripted [of our shorts] until “The Teleporter.”

(Laughs all around… for those not in the know, “The Teleporter” was the most recently shot – but not the most recently-released – project.)

TBSR: Do you prefer working that way? Starting with the broad idea and letting the dialogue come out of improvisation, letting the characters develop from your natural interaction?

Tyler: I would say that that has probably changed. “The Birthday Party” was a different story because the scenes weren’t that narratively complex. We could get away with that improvised style a little more. With “The Treasure Hunt” there’s much more of a high-concept story being told and much more of an arc and the edit has kinda been challenging. Because of the lack of scripting that we did, the edit has been more of a challenge. We actually had to take a step back and look at what the footage was telling us and not what we wanted the story to be. And it’s great that the “homegrown” feel is in the footage, but I’d never work like this again. This has been more of a lesson in editing than anything else. We could edit any project after cutting “The Treasure Hunt.”

TBSR: But before that, was the concept solid when you start, or do you often come to set and are still changing it around?

Matt: Like now?

TBSR: Like in the early days. Let’s go back to the time of “Good Roommates.”

Rob: Lots of emails, because we all had day jobs. So it’d be a constant email chain and from there we’d beat out an outline of what we saw doing

Matt: It’s funny, because actually I think “Good Roommates” was scripted, and then the next one that had a script was “Prison Break” because Tyler [Tuione, who plays a prison inmate] wanted one. So basically when we have an [outside] actor in it, it’s like “Where’s the script?” and we write a script for them.

Chad: Yeah, just for that part.

Matt: Up until “Treasure Hunt.” We wrote a script for Alfonso [Arau, who plays the villain] ---

Tyler: Which was super-essential. That’s why he got involved.

Matt: And we only scripted his scenes. And [the rest] was little slugs [that told the rest of the story.] Then as soon as we got to editing, we were like “Fucking A, we’re scripting everything from now on.” So for “The Teleporter,” we wrote the entire script. It was so much easier to shoot and to edit.

TBSR: And it only took three years to get there!

Rob: We learned!

TBSR: Did not having a script help you guys develop the characters on the early ones, because you weren’t locked into something and were able to discover the characters in the moment?

Tyler: I think that’s actually a great take on that.

Rob: And action! Instead of [the characters] just talking, we’re a big believer in doing, like starting with action.

Tyler: It activates things in a new way when it’s not just a staged, blocked situation. I think there’s an natural interpretation of how to move. It also shoots fast. It shoots - with the two cameras we’ve been using since “The Birthday Party” – really quick. We know right away when we’ve covered everything comedically. The edits are harder, but we shoot pretty fast.

TBSR: Because you guys must come in with a lot of footage.

Tyler: Tons and tons of footage.

Matt: And as far as the characters go, in terms of long-term not having scripts and stuff, if you watch our stuff from way back, you’ll see our characters forming. Like it wasn’t always the “Rob” character, the “Chad” character, the “Matt” character.

TBSR: At the time you started doing these shorts, it seemed like you were doing them ever two months or so---

Matt: About one every month and a half.

TBSR: And what was your goal then? Just to get something out on the internet? What was your game plan?

Matt & Rob: No idea! (all laugh)

Chad: The way we approach it – that’s why my character’s a little different from everyone – is that I wanted to use [the shorts] in a demo reel instead of having an actor’s demo reel… which I’ve never done! (all laugh)

Tyler: You guys were releasing that stuff before YouTube was even monotized. So I don’t think anybody but the people who worked at YouTube had any sense of what the future of that [medium] was gonna be. You guys were creating viral content before anyone was considering signing a web creator to a TV or movie deal. This was years before those dialogues.

TBSR: So this was not your bid to “We’re gonna put this out here, this is gonna get us discovered and this is gonna get us meetings?”

Matt: And I think part of it was we were at the point – I know Chad and I were – of “this could be our reel,” which is naïve in hindsight, but quickly that fell off. I’ve never made a reel.

TBSR: And at what point was it clear that this was getting you a solid following outside your circle of friends?

Rob: The Alien video [“Chad Hates Aliens” aka “Roommate Alien Prank Goes Bad.”]

Matt: For me it was “Good Roommates.” It got featured on MySpace, got like 10,000 views…

Rob: “Yeah! This is the best day ever! I’m famous!”

Chad: The first three or four videos were just on MySpace [at the time.]

Rob: We didn’t put anything on YouTube until after the Alien video got its first million hits on Break.com.

TBSR: And I do want to talk about “Chad Hates Aliens.” How long did that take you guys to shoot?

Matt: Two hours.

TBSR: And how long to come up with the idea?

Matt: Two days.

Rob: And it changed. It was originally something really stupid, like we were going to wake Chad up, “Hey Chad, we’re going to DisneyLand,” and then he gets out of bed and we hit him.

Matt: I don’t even remember that. But it was really quick. We didn’t really know what it was when we were shooting it. [We called our friend Jon Peele at the last moment] to hold the camera.

Chad: And Jessica did the blood make-up and held the spotlight out the window [to simulate the alien ship.]

Rob: And Jake held the alien.

Matt: That is… if it isn’t real.

Tyler: The cat’s out of the bag!

TBSR: So you put this up on Break.com and it took off extremely quickly.

Rob: It was featured on the front page and it got like a million views in one day.

TBSR: How does something end up on the front page of Break? Is there like a metric of how many views you get…?

Matt: No idea.

Rob: I think someone who works at Break monitors incoming videos and they saw “oh this is good,” and then they put it up on the front page.

Tyler: And that was a lot easier for people to do back then. There was less content to filter. Now they have departments focused on finding the next viral thing.

Rob: Now there’s what, 60 hours every minute being uploaded?

TBSR: And Break is where you picked up the bulk of your audience. And I remember it “Roommate Alien Prank Goes Bad” being covered on Attack of the Show within a few days of it being posted. What kind of reaction were you getting from it?

Rob: [Mostly] “Is that alien real?” emails. We’d get like 30 a day and still do.

Matt: Yeah, we still get ten [of those] a day.

TBSR: Is that the appeal of this one, that it looks like it could be real, and everyone passes it along because of that?

Tyler: I think that’s absolutely it. It’s the blend of comedy and horror too.

TBSR: And it’s very short. It’s like two and a half minutes.

Matt: It fits the internet window and the two emails we get more than anything ever are: “Oh, that’s so funny when they hit him in the head with the ironing board” and “Oh my god, is that real?” So it’s exactly that, people who think it’s funny that Chad gets hit in the face, or that it’s scary.

Tyler: It’s also so self-contained that the narrative doesn’t need to exist outside of what is shown. It’s so digestible, it’s like this little nugget of fun. That’s what viral videos were – these little self-contained pieces of entertainment that were between three and four minutes long.

Matt: As far as that video changing anything, I don’t think it did---

Chad: It did a little bit. Because we did get the one meeting with UTA, who suggested we come up with a webseries.

Matt: I think what changed for us then was we were like, “Let’s stop doing sketchy stuff and let’s start doing stories.” For us, once we did “Cops and Robbers” and “Danger Zone” they felt more like little stories, not so much like sketch comedy stuff. Which is where we’ve evolved. From “Birthday Party” and “Treasure Hunt” we’ve been like, push the story, push the story, push the story.”

Rob: That’s what we want to do. We want to tell a good story. We want to develop these awesome characters. We don’t want to do sketch comedy.

Tyler: And part of what sketch comedy is, is people playing different characters and what’s become great about this brand is that you guys are the characters and we now follow “Chad,” “Matt,” and “Rob” the characters through all these different adventures. So it feels like a series of stories.

TBSR: Like kind of a modern day Three Stooges in a way.

Tyler: Sure.

TBSR: Because one week the Stooges might be cops, another week they might be orderlies, but the characterizations would be consistent.

Matt: And that’s one thing we’ve started sticking with now.

Tyler: And how those characters specifically service the story. Who Matt is and what Matt does is absolutely essential for the scene going in this direction.

Matt: And that might be going against Rob’s character [who has a different agenda.]

Tyler: Rob is the instigator who starts shit. Rob is the plot.

TBSR: He always seems to be the catalyst. Have you broken it down into ID, EGO and SUPEREGO? because Rob is definitely ID.

(all laugh)

Part II - The Interactive Adventures
Part III - Producing web shorts

Amateur Friday - Iris Of The Garden

Genre: Western
Premise: Appalled by the lack of concern following a brothel worker's murder, a young prostitute in the Old West sets out to find the killer while searching for her own escape from the world's oldest profession.
About: Iris Of The Garden is a 2010 Nicholl Quarter-Finalist. That tag has gotten Shaarawi some requests for her script, but so far nothing’s come of it. She wants to know what it’s missing. -- Every Friday, I review a script from the readers of the site. If you’re interested in submitting your script for an Amateur Review, send it in PDF form, along with your title, genre, logline, and why I should read your script to Carsonreeves3@gmail.com. Keep in mind your script will be posted.
Writer: Lizz-Ayn Shaarawi
Details: 100 pages (This is an early draft of the script. The situations, characters, and plot may change significantly by the time the film is released. This is not a definitive statement about the project, but rather an analysis of this unique draft as it pertains to the craft of screenwriting).

Photo from the movie "Brothel" by Amy Waddell

When I finished “Iris Of The Garden,” I really took Shaarawi’s question to heart. “What’s missing here?” “Garden” had done pretty well at Nicholl and she’d gotten some read requests from the placing, but how come that’s where the trail ended? What is it that’s holding this script back?

It’s an important question. If you don’t understand why another script isn’t working, how can you understand what’s wrong with your own script? I mean sure you can just say, “I didn’t like it,” or “It was boring,” but that doesn’t help you become a better screenwriter. So I really had that question on my mind when evaluating Iris Of The Garden.

It’s the Old West. Iris, a pretty 19 year old young woman, has just finished her first “job,” which would be fucking the mayor of this town. Yes, Iris is a prostitute.

Her career path wasn’t by choice (it rarely is). Iris was simply coming to town to get some honest work, and found herself out of money with no place to turn. So now she’s here, in a brothel, the last place in the world she wants to be.

If that wasn’t depressing enough, her arrival is quickly followed by the killing of one of her co-workers. Petal, barely 17 years old, was a recluse, a one-time good girl who had since gone nuts.

Iris is shocked that nobody seems to care about this brutal killing, so she bestows it upon herself to figure out who was responsible. She eventually teams up with her best friend in the house, 17 year old Fern, to seek out clues that will lead her to the killer.

At first the assumption is that it’s Indians, then one of the customers, but over time it spreads to the owners of the brothel and beyond. The chief suspect is Mr. Donner, the big shot owner of the General Store and one of Petal’s main customers. Donner is notorious for being violent in bed, so Iris and Fern are certain he’s involved in this somehow.

Along the way we meet a few other suspects as well one of Iris’s customers, the loner Jimmy Wayne, who falls in love with her, proclaiming her “his girl” and promising that one day he’s going to take her away from here. Iris must also fight off Violet, the evil “queen bee” of the house who’s clearly threatened by Iris’s beauty, and who may be in cahoots with a couple of other main suspects.

There’s a few twists and turns along the way, and Iris is also seeking a possible escape from the brothel, but this is basically a simple story about one woman trying to solve a murder.

So back to that question. Why isn’t “Iris of The Garden” able to find a way past that “good but not great” label? I think there are a few factors to consider here, and it starts with the genre. Despite the amazing success of True Grit, Westerns are a tough sell, and rarely find their way up the development ladder. The only reason why Grit was made was because the Coen Brothers decided to make it. It was not a spec script that was brought to them. It was all them.

You have to remember that 99% of the people you give your script to are thinking, in one form or another, can this script or this writer make me money? Writers don’t think about that for some reason. The agent? The producer? The manager? These are all people with families, with mortgages, with car payments, with “Hollywood image” upkeep. So when these people receive a Western, they know immediately it’s going to be a writing sample, not a script they can sell, and that puts it low on the priority list.

Now that’s not to say a Western can’t start someone’s career or that I’m saying “Never write a Western.” Craig Zahler, who wrote The Brigands Of Rattleborge, got himself a ton of assignment work from that one screenplay. The point I’m making is, becoming a professional screenwriter is hard as it is. But it becomes even harder when you handicap yourself with a genre Hollywood's reluctant to embrace.

But I think the bigger problem with this script is in the setup, and it’s a problem that pops up a lot in this kind of story. For investigation scripts to work, the person investigating has to have a strong reason to do so. In most of these films, it’s a detective or a cop doing the investigating, which makes perfect sense because that’s their job. Over the course of the story, as they learn more about the murdered or kidnapped person, they become more attached to them, making their motivation even stronger.

When you don’t use a cop or a detective, you have to find some other reason why the protagonist would be strongly motivated. So in the million dollar spec sale, Prisoners, about a man whose daughter is kidnapped, he may not be a cop, but it makes perfect sense why he begins his own investigation. Because it’s his daughter!

I never once understood why Iris was trying to solve Petal’s murder. She never knew the girl. I don’t even think she spoke to her. So for her to become obsessively involved so quickly didn’t feel natural. It bordered on flippant, the way Nancy Drew might decide to investigate the random disappearance of her classmate’s favorite red scarf.

There’s certainly a sense of connection here, that these two girls are stuck in the same horrifying position. But no matter what twist or turn came up in the story, I always kept saying to myself, “Why is she doing this? Why does she care so much?”

The other big problem I had was that there was no urgency in the investigation, no ticking time bomb. One of the things that works so well in serial killer screenplays is that the killer is going to strike again. This results in both high stakes (another potential death) and a ticking time bomb (the impending next kill). We don’t have any impending doom in this story. There’s nothing dictating that our protagonist find out who this killer is RIGHT NOW. And there’s no stakes involved in whether she solves the case. Nothing will really change whether she finds the killer or not.

I realize it would make a different movie, but I think it might be more exciting if Iris showed up at this whorehouse with three of four girls recently murdered instead of one. Now she’s not just investigating a murder out of curiosity. She’s trying to prevent her own murder, to save the lives of herself and her friends in the house. I think that would be way more exciting.

As for the rest of the script, it was pretty good. You know, if you ignore the story problems I listed above, the writing itself is solid. It’s a nice sparse easy-to-read script. The prose is pleasant. The dialogue feels authentic. I felt like we were really in a whore house back in the old West, which is by no means an easy feat. Some of the characters were really well drawn, including the nasty Violet and the nastier Donner.

I thought the “romantic interest” could have been better handled, as it never seemed like Lizz-Ayn was truly committed to it (and the whole “I’m really rich” surprise at the end felt like a reality TV reveal, not a serious twist in a dramatic Western), but for this script to get where it wants to go, the whole motivation thing needs to be worked out, and I think there needs to be more danger involved in the pursuit. We have to feel like people don’t want Iris digging. We have to feel like more killings are coming. This thing just needs to be a little grander in scope.

Some good writing here, but the story definitely needs some work.

Script link: Iris Of The Garden

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[x] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Motivation is so important. Why is your main character doing what they’re doing? If there isn’t some strong reason for their actions, your entire script is doomed. Shrek’s going on his journey to get his swamp back. Colin Firth in King’s Speech goes on his journey because he has to give the most important speech in history. Even in the movie I didn’t like, Winter’s Bone, I admit that the main character had a very strong motivation for going on her journey – to save her house and her family. So make sure your protagonist’s motivation is rock solid in your screenplay.