Blown trumpets

A quick follow-up to the previous post, in case the statement about me writing fairly decent first drafts might have been poo-pooed. One of my first draft scripts received the following comments:

"The greatest contributor to this screenplay’s enjoyabilty is perhaps its well-written dialogue, descriptions, and action sequences."

and from a different reader:

"Almost every page of this screenplay contains a new visual delight.  The screen directions are clear and economical, painting word pictures of each scene without bogging the reader down in unnecessary details."

But, of course, the reason why this script will never win any prizes as it stands, because it is a first draft: "sometimes plot elements are unexplained or become confusing" and "your plot is too rambling and lacks cohesion – plot elements crop up, seem important, and then are discarded". From the same two readers - but essentially saying the same thing.

The details may be fine, but the big picture is flawed.

Doesn't matter how good a first draft you write: It's not finished. Writing is rewriting.

---

What's on the turntable? Nowt

First draft is the best

Yeah right.

As was stated recently by my blogger good buddy Kid in the Front Row: it's great how independent movies can be made nowadays with no interference from the big studios through the use of crowdfunding.

But there's one major problem with that: No quality control.

I have been generous with my funding of projects on Kickstarter and IndieGoGo - I want to do some major crowdfunding in the future and I have a "what goes around comes around" attitude. As you give so shall you receive and all that.

This has had one unfortunate result. My name is now attached to a product which suffers from a script that clearly has had zero quality control. Honestly, I have the greatest admiration for someone getting off their backside and actually making something. But please put the work in with the script first, it's the most important part.

(On the positive side I've also helped produce some very good stuff as well.)

But if you want proof positive? I have two scripts as quarter-finalists in Philip Gladwin's Screenwriting Goldmine competition. Now I'm not saying this as a boast because I submitted four (or was it five?) scripts in a fit of crazy overspending. (This makes me only 20% as good as those who put in one script and got it through.)

Of those scripts the two that got through were the ones that had received a massive amount of feedback. I'm mean, seriously, a lot - over a two year period in both cases. The others had had minimal or none. First drafts.

Now I know I don't write totally crap first drafts, they're reasonable and they're readable. But they aren't great. Screenwriting is hard work, all art is 5% creativity and 95% hard slog.

There are those who will tell you that buying feedback from script readers is useless because they'll always tell you that more work needs to be done. Or they don't know what they're talking about. Or some other excuse.

It's bollocks. The only people who will say this are those not willing to put in the work needed to make their scripts great.  I have had a script reader tell me that a script is as good as it can get - until a director gets his hands on it, of course. And that is one of the scripts that got through and I haven't touched it since he told me.

If you're serious about being a screenwriter you need professional feedback. And you need to trust these guys and gals, because they know what they're talking about.

Are there any caveats? Yes, anyone can set themselves up as a reader - but I have yet to find one who was a fraud and I've used quite a lot of different ones. It is possible to come across one who doesn't quite have the same sensibilities as you. This does not mean they don't know what they're talking about but if you don't get on, it's not going to work so well. But that's just life.

If you can get two reports on the same draft that's good, but three is better. And rotate them, and try to get someone new on a draft because if a reader's seen it before their attitudes to the previous version will still be sitting there (though I know they try hard to read each draft as if they've never seen it before).

So what's the take-away? Scripts always need work. Get feedback so you know what to work on.

---

What's on the turntable? "The Light Dies Down on Broadway" by Genesis from "A Lamb Lies Down on Broadway"

Analysis

I sat down this lunchtime and worked my way through the notes on Tec provided by my readers, comparing notes - as it were.

One reason for using more than one reader is that they have different emphasis - which makes the times that they agree even more important; and when they disagree you have to be get even more analytical.

For example, the opening of Tec introduces the characters where the crime will take place, followed by the introduction of the protagonist - one reader liked it and other reader didn't. While I am not, as I've said, precious about the work I do have a clear idea as to how the story should go and a clear visualisation of the opening. So it will stay.

But the reader who liked the opening felt the future-crime-scene characters were not defined clearly enough, nor were the stakes high enough - which had bad effects later on. So, in reality, both readers were probably saying the same thing, just in a different way.

On the other hand, both pointed out the difficulty of having private investigators involved in the investigation of murders - however, as long as I can think of a reasonable justification, that doesn't have to be a major issue. One reader mentioned the TV series Vincent which did just that - now I'm wishing I'd watched it.

Having read both sets of responses in detail, the best description of Tec would be to describe it as "fuzzy" when it needs to be crystal clear.

Onwards and upwards.

---

What's on the turntable? "The Snow Goose" by Camel from "The Snow Goose". I am at work but with the help of Spotify I can listen to my favourite tracks. I am a total Spotify convert (http://www.spotify.com/) all the albums I'll never get around to buying (or replacing from my vinyls) they're here! And I can listen to them for free - with the occasional advert. Wonderful.

Air-craft

Got my feedback from Jez last night on Air. Excellent stuff - thanks.

As I need to get this sorted out for the CBBC competition I've temporarily shelved Tec to make sure Air is just gleaming with polish (yes, I have 6 weeks but if I do it now I can send it and forget about it).

I also went back to the report from Dave Bull that I got back in February because I knew there were some changes I hadn't made that he had recommended. At the time I didn't want to make them, but by comparing them with the latest feedback I could see more clearly whether the changes were needed.

Jez brought up some interesting points, some of which tied in with Dave's comments, so I had a good old analyse and wrote a list of changes. Some were no-brainers, just make the obvious change.

Others needed a bit more thought about how they could be done sensibly. But I usually find that these changes have other beneficial knock-on effects - if they are something that should be done.

Anyway it took me about two hours in all but I'm happy with the changes.

I'll print it out at the weekend and give it a run-through with the red pen to ensure it flows and I haven't done anything silly. Then it'll be in the post and forgotten.

'Til next time.

---

What's on the turntable? "Visionary" by Gordon Giltrap from "Visionary"

Living it large on humble pie

Edit: "humple pie"? He-he-he-he. Humple! (I misspelt humble in the title.)

I got the feedback on Unit X today. Philip Shelley was concerned that I might be upset by his blunt comments about it. I am going to repeat my e-mail reply to him here, I think it's that important.

Hi Philip

I have read your notes. I smile wryly: that’s pretty much what the original notes about Monsters said.

Lacking in focus.

Clearly I have learned nothing.

Except that if you had asked me, when I first sent out Monsters, what I thought was wrong with it, I would have had no idea. (This was before you saw it.)

But if you’d have asked me what I thought was the main problem with Unit X, I would have said “lack of a clear protagonist”. (So why did I send it to you? Because I needed someone else to tell me and point at bits going “what on earth is that?”

So I have learned something. Which is good. Comments like “baffling” also applied to Monsters.

Besides what are my normal high standards? You’ve only seen two scripts by me - you didn’t see Une Nuit a Paris which was absolutely slammed by Dave Bull (“sub-Carry On”). He wanted me to tell him that I had written it before Monsters, but I hadn’t - however I had sent him a first draft. Won’t do that again!

I needed a bit of humility. You have handed me some humble pie on a plate. I eat with relish.

I’m not past writing rubbish and, as far as Unit X goes (and Une Nuit a Paris) I just haven’t found the story yet.

As I said, I’m not a tender flower, and when you told me I had some talent you lit a fire under my writing which can’t be put out.

Loving that humble pie - smothered in raspberry sauce.

---

What's on the turntable? "All is Full of Love" by Bjork from "Homogenic". Bjork is just so ... Bjork.

Cheshire cats

I'm grinning from ear to ear. I hope my jaw doesn't fall off.

And then my kettle exploded. All the lights went out. Using my mobile as a torch I unplugged the kettle and reset the fuses. Phew.

I've had feedback from my other main script reader, Dave Bull, about my "Air" script. Modesty forbids me to quote everything he said in his opening remarks but the word "Wow!" (with the exclamation mark) came into it. Mind you, modesty didn't stop me from boring my wife with it over the phone.

However he did have some script-readery things to say, and he was right. He noted that the tone of the main character, and thence the script, changed significantly at one clearly definable point. Which is a bad thing.

But still, I was pleased because he did say a lot of nice things.

I did get three full pages of Monsters OGN (see I'm calling it that now) written yester-eve, and popped it over to the illustrator. It's really interesting how it all works out - the things that I'm including in the OGN but left out of the TV script, and vice versa. Now, we wait.

Do you think you want to write for Hollywood? I thought I might, but I think I've changed my mind - no, I have definitely changed my mind. Why? (You may ask, and if not, why not?)

Why?

Because of this posting and then this one. And I am unwilling to be crapped on like that. From my reading of Bill Martell's blog I knew that this sort of thing went on, but these two guys are even higher up the tree than Bill.

Then again, it's not that I've completely changed my mind - it's a case of ensuring that when you do write for Hollywood you're in a sufficiently powerful position that this does not happen to you.

Funnily enough there is a book which would make a cracking SF blockbuster. It's written by one of the absolute masters of SF, yet the book is available, I almost optioned it a couple of years ago. Good thing I didn't, I wouldn't have been able to write a decent script then.

One day.

I'm going to do some work on Unit X. Right now. Honest.

---

What's on the turntable? "Leon's Room" by Vangelis from "Bladerunner CD2"

Got me some learnin'

I mentioned back here that I'd sent off Air (my kids fantasy) to be given the once over by Philip Shelley. And that I was especially interested to know whether I'd learnt anything, since Monsters took me about 2 years to write and Air took me, say, three months (at the same rate).

And I shall also bring in Piers' blog (and Lucy's reply) about using commercial readers is a bad thing because they're just after your money so will never say it's ready.

Well, I'm happy to report that apparently I have learned something about writing from working with Lucy, Scott, Dave and Philip.

It's a bit shocking but I got exactly three notes about Air, none of which were earth-shattering, just clarifications. But, as far as Philip is concerned, it's good to go. In fact, he's sending already.

Well Piers, I'd say that was proof your viewpoint is flawed, sorry. (Of course there may be a reader or two that might be the way you describe, but I haven't met one.)

On a personal note, this is an amazing boost to my confidence as a writer as you may imagine. It means Monsters wasn't a one-hit wonder. Now I can continue Unit X with renewed vigour, knowing that I stand a reasonable chance of producing something decent.

---

What's on the turntable? "Money can't buy it" by Annie Lennox from "Diva", not sure I've had an Annie Lennox track on a blog before. However it goes along with my "I really like female singer-songwriters", I just remember a show where she and Dave Stewart were being interviewed and were invited to play something. So he gets out a guitar and they just sing. It was amazing - real talent.

Another pass through Air

Have I got anything interesting to write? Probably not. I was talking to a chap at a job agency today who agreed that living away from home is essentially boring. So I'm bored.

I'm travelling to Bristol tomorrow afternoon as my one week contract starts on Thursday. After that I'm no longer sure except that I won't be working in Lancaster - I'm too expensive for the company concerned (in fact I am exactly what they want, and that's why I'm too expensive).

However I've had loads of other jobs coming through, and there's a potential one in Manchester (yeah!) which would be ideal. So fingers crossed on that one.

Made a final pass through Air again this morning (hm, sounds like I'm flying) picked up a couple of typos, and cleaned up the climax to make it a bit more climactic, and have zoomed it over to Philip Shelley for his considered criticism.

I'm quite interested to see what he says, not just because I want to improve it, which I obviously do, but to see whether I'm a better writer than I used to be.

Look at it this way: When I sent him Monsters it had been re-written more times than I know. It had received the Bang2write treatment from our Lucy, and many other readers. I'd been working on it for a long time.

But Air is in second draft. I've spent a fraction of the time on it compared to Monsters (even taking into account the fact it's half the length). So, will it be sent back as absolutely appalling? Or have I got a better grasp of the craft? Or am I making the same mistakes?

Or will it be like a band's fatal "second album"? The first album usually consists of songs a band has been playing for a long time, they are confident and refined, the second album is usually rushed out.

Anyway you can be sure that I will let you know.

So for most of the rest of the day I have been working on "Unit X" (it needs a better title, something with one word, it'll come to me). Not working on the script as yet but planning the structure of the first episode. Working out the story. I know how it opens (with the end), I know I'm going to be running two time periods side by side, I know what happens in general terms but I need to work my way down to a few more details.

Of course I never make it easy for myself: Monsters, Air and Unit X all open in unusual settings that need explaining. Monsters is the future (2060), Air is a different dimension (though ends up in present day UK) and Unit X is historical (1945) - a costume drama no less :-)

But, as I think I mentioned before, Unit X has some really juicy conflicts: institutional racism and sexism for starters, some post-war economic depression and then add Cold War paranoia with a liberal dash of aliens. Yummy.

Until I write again, au revoir.

---

What's on the turntable? "Big Yellow Taxi" by Joni Mitchell from the "Hits" compilation

Monsters: the Script Reading

So I have this TV pilot "Monsters" which I intend to enter for the Red Planet competition, I entered Draft 2 last year but it's had major surgery with the help of various readers since then. And it's much better now.

It just so happens that my daughter's acting class is run by a friend of mine, Victoria, (actress, director, producer and teacher). She suddenly suggested that I have it read by her adult group. So the day was planned, the Saturday just gone, and this is my report on same plus some hopefully sage advice.

The first issue was the number of actors available. I didn't know, but Monsters has something like 28 male parts and 18 female parts and obviously there was no way I'd get that many. So, after it was proposed at Victoria's group we got an estimate of 6 female actors and 4 male.

I went through the script and created a grid of which characters appeared in the same scene as other characters. Then I figured out groupings for 4, 5, and 6 female actors plus 3, 4 and 5 males such that no one had to double up in a given scene. Clever me.

Also it meant that I didn't know how many scripts to print out so I had to guess. Turns out I can get 4 x 60 page scripts from one £7 ink cartridge on my printer, which is about 3p a copy so it's not too bad.

Saturday dawns. I check the website of the studios where we're going to be doing it. It's emblazoned with a big red sign saying "All classes closed". There's a problem. I call the studio, there's no answer. I call Victoria, currently en route with my daughter. She makes phone calls. We can't use the studio, there's a problem.

It's 12:30pm we're supposed to start at 2:00pm. I call the sound recordist. No answer, oh god, I think, is he on his way? I leave a message.

More phone calls, desperate phone calls, can we get another venue, I find one but it's out of town and we don't know what transport people have, if any.

Call from Victoria: She's found a back room of a cafe in central Manchester just round the corner from the studio. Will that do, it's £25? Yes, I say, why not. It's even got tables which the studio didn't.

I call the sound recordist: he's in. I tell him about the change. He can't be there. He has no transport and can't get the equipment there. In a burst of tact, I tell him that's fine as I have an alternative solution. Once off the phone I cannot believe it. At no point during our e-mail exchange did this guy mention that fact he needed transport but didn't have any. When someone offers help it's great, but to offer help that couldn't be provided? My alternative solution was: Don't bother recording it.

By now I'm running late. I leap in the car with my scripts and head off into Manchester. Victoria promises me that there are always parking spaces nearby. I'm dubious but I trust her. She's right. I get into the area, find the original studio, find Victoria and find a parking space. I've brought plenty of change (and paper money too).

The cast are there and we head off to the Mod Cafe, for that is what it is: The vegetarian Mod Cafe on Oldham Street. The back room isn't actually a separate room, it's the bit under the stairs but it's not on the main run through the cafe and we might get an audience but that's what it's all about.

We re-arrange the furniture, I get introduced and there's 6 women and 2 men not counting me. Victoria suggests that she can play a set of male parts, sounds good to me. No one has read the script before except my daughter so I'm not quite sure what I'm expecting but hey, it's fun.

Having seen the various "Dr Who Confidential" shows they do on BBC3 I know that TV read-throughs have someone reading the "action", so I suggest that I'll do that. And we're set.

Thing is, this is Draft 4 and I already know that it's getting detailed changes in Draft 5. But that's okay, this will help me see what the script readers said was wrong with 4. I hope.

We settle down, I do a brief bit of setting (this is SF, set in 2063, there's been two plagues...) because that stuff will be coming up first in D5, but aren't in D4. And we start.

It's going well, considering that they've never seen it before they do a good job of reading. (Which I do have to take some credit for - everyone says I write good dialogue.) After about 20 pages I'm hating reading the action. One of the actresses, Tia (?), offers to read it. And she does an excellent job. Now I can just listen, it's much better that way, and I can make annotations on my script scratching out bits of unnecessary dialogue.

They laugh at the funny bits and, towards the end, Tia speeds up because the action is driving it. (Philip Shelley said the last 17 pages were really good, that matches his experience.)

And we get to the end in about an hour, which is right. Interesting.

Afterwards they all said they liked it, which was nice. But when one said "I want to know what happens next!" That was best. But I'm a realist, the compliments are lovely but there's still plenty of work to do.

We had some drinks (which I paid for, as my thank you to them); after a while everybody drifted away and I paid the man, Martin, nice guy. And a hero for us.

It wasn't perfect: I'd completely missed one female character. And managed to have someone playing against themself in one scene. Plus Tia was doing the action in the scene she also had a character in. But neither was a big issue.

Was it worth it? Absolutely. I gained the objectivity to see that the first part of the story lacks dramatic drive, unlike those last 17 pages which really cook. I'd recommend the process to any writer. But try to make sure you have enough people to read, do a character grid and make sure you can do it with just a few actors. I also wanted to produce a set of character cards with a brief description to hand out but the time constraints meant that didn't happen.

So now I have to fix everything in D5 because it's the last draft I'll get out before the Red Planet deadline. I also found out a piece of TV inside information (that I absolutely cannot repeat) which means that the 0.00001% probability that a spec script gets made suddenly takes a leap as far as Monsters is concerned - and that means "One Night in Paris" and "Running" are on hold until Monsters is fixed.

It's at times like this i wish I didn't have a day job - until I remember the financial situation I used to be in. Don't give up the day job. Just work harder.

---

What's on the turntable? "The Great Gig in the Sky" by Pink Floyd from "The Dark Side of the Moon". What can I say? Except "Sheer genius".

What's the point of a scriptreader?

Now I don't mean a scriptreader who works (employed directly or freelance) for a production company and checks through the masses of scripts they get in to separate the wheat from the chaff. (Not much wheat, loads of chaff.)

I mean what good is a scriptreader to you? Why should you pay out good money for someone to read what you're written.

(This is not an advert, I don't do scriptreading, I have however done book reading and book editing and one day I might write a blog about it, or two.)

Unfortunately the answer came to me the other day when a spec script I've been working on for a long time came back, covered in red ink. Figuratively. Honestly I almost cried, though that may have been the onions.

Once upon a time this script was clear of adverbs and continuous tense, plus odd mistakes with apostrophes. (At least one reader had been amazed at how free of errors it was - but then they didn't know my history.)

But over time, through the rewrites and the edits, they had crept back in and I hadn't noticed.

So on the most basic mechanical level what a reader is for is providing that second set of eyes that sees the things that you miss. No matter how experienced you are and I've had experience writing as a magazine editor for over 15 years. But that experience counts for so little when it's your own work.

Then there were the rubbish scenes, irrelevant scenes. Even I knew they were unnecessary, flabby, pointless ... and I left them in. Why? Too lazy. I had intended to remove them at some point but never got round to it. Super scriptreader strikes again.

And then there's all the things they look at, overall structure for example, when you've written the work it can be very hard to see the wood for the trees. And you need to have that bird's eye view. Dialogue? is it up to scratch?

A good scriptreader will save you time and heartache. They can't turn you into an inspirational writer but with sound mechanics at least your script won't suck.

---

What's on the turntable? "Cannonball" by Sky from "Sky" (or at least it would be if I hadn't switched it off.)