westerns

Time once again for…

Maximum Z analysis, characters, cliches, Comedy Film Nerds, criticism, Graham Elwood, Movie of the Moment, screenwriting, script, story, The Lone Ranger, tone, westerns, writing
Okay, class. Who's got stuff to talk about?
Okay, class. Who’s got stuff to talk about?

…the much-anticipated Project Status Update!

So simple, anyone can do it in just two easy steps!

Here’s how it works:

1. What you’re currently working on
2. How it’s going

I’ll start the ball rolling.

1. A rewrite of my mystery spec.
2. I’m up to page 82, which places it in the latter half of Act 2. This includes the realization that my “page 75” plot point has changed, but still works.

See? No sweat. Give it a try.

And continuing with the theme of something not seen in a while…

-Movie of the Moment. THE LONE RANGER (2013). Yep. Finally.

It wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t good either. My biggest complaint was that there was just way too much going on. I’m all for an epic western, but this felt like they were trying to jam in as many cliches as possible. They could have totally removed at least two supporting characters and the inane “1933 Tonto telling a story” scenes.

It really seemed like it couldn’t decide what kind of story it wanted to be. Slapstick comedy? Buddy picture? Drama with touches of gore? All these and more on display.

One of the first rules in screenwriting is to make the audience want to root for your main character, which unfortunately doesn’t happen here. I actually thought Armie Hammer was a good choice to play the part, but the material was all wrong. Yes, he’s adapting to the ways of the frontier, but for crying out loud, this is the LONE RANGER. You do not make him a naive doofus.

Regarding Johnny Depp as Tonto, Graham Elwood of the Comedy Film Nerds podcast summed it up perfectly: The name of the movie is THE LONE RANGER, not JACK SPARROW GOES WEST.

One can only hope that the failure of this film will not once again stop the resurgence of the western.

Their opinion (singular) vs their opinion (plural)

Maximum Z characters, conflict, dialogue, feedback, rewrite, screenwriting, script, setup, spec, story, storytelling, westerns, writing
Anybody else have something to say?
Anybody else have something to say?

When you get feedback on your work, you have the luxury of being able to pick and choose which comments and suggestions you’re going to use, and disregarding the rest.

It’s only one person’s thoughts, right? Maybe there’s a worthwhile nugget or two in there.

But what if more than one person makes the same comment?  If those folks mentioned it, it might be likely more are going to as well.

Take a look at what they’re saying. Can you understand why they said it, and more importantly, what can you do to fix it?

Such was the case for a pivotal plot point in my western spec. At least three people asked “Why does this character do this?”

Each claimed it didn’t make sense and felt contrived, like it was happening because the story needed it to, rather than being set up organically.

If one person had said this, I would have thought “Maybe I’ll take a look at it.”  After the second and third piped in, it quickly changed to “How can I fix this?”

It took some work (mostly with the dialogue) to set things right, so not only does this character now feel more fleshed out, but their actions come across as more believable, there’s more conflict between them and the main character, and the flow of the story is smoother.

A writer’s ego is already a sensitive thing, but what’s more important? Thinking your work is perfect as is and doesn’t need any changes, or being willing to make those changes to make it better?

Maybe it’s a little fix or maybe it requires a major overhaul. No matter what, you’ve got some work to do.

Slightly easier (but I still don’t like it)

Maximum Z feedback, loglines, manager, mystery, rewrite, screenwriting, script, setup, spec, story, stress, synopsis, tone, westerns, writing
Takes a while to really get it right
Takes a while to really get it right

After a great discussion of his notes for the western spec, my manager’s script guy said those words I have always and will probably continue to dread.

“All we need now is your logline and one-pager.”

Ugh.

You know that feeling of loathing when there’s something you really don’t want to do, but know that you absolutely have to? That’s exactly how I felt, and from what I understand, I’m not alone in this.

But like I said, it had to be done.

First up was the logline. I’d already spent a lot of time working on this, so most of the heavy lifting was out of the way. Turns out it just needed a little tightening up, so yay on that front.

Which brings us to the one-page synopsis.

Double ugh.  Calling it the bane of my existence is a little harsh. More like a necessary evil.

Using what I did last year for DREAMSHIP as a model, I opted to put it together like a slightly extended version of what you would read on the back of a paperback novel.

A quick overview-setup establishing the major character and main storyline, then some hints/teasers at what comes after things really get started, followed by a sort of cliffhanger about the ending.

As was explained to me, to convert the potentially-interested into the definitely-interested, the synopsis has to really capture the tone of your script and not focus as much on what happens. The more concise and descriptive you can be regarding what the story’s about rather than the story itself, the better. Go into too much detail and you’ve lost their interest.

It took a few attempts, but in the end I had what I consider to be a pretty strong synopsis. There will most likely have to be some rewrites, but that’s okay. The hard part’s done.

In the meantime, it’s back to the mystery spec rewrite. Rest assured that as I work my way through the second half, my always-reliable subconscious will keep reminding me of one absolute truth:

“You know you’re going to have to write a one-pager for this one too, right?”

Triple ugh.

What’s wrong with PG-13?

Maximum Z action, adventure, creativity, Django Unchained, feedback, Indiana Jones, mystery, networking, plot, scenes, screenwriting, script, spec, story, storytelling, Tarantino, tone, westerns, writing
One of the two movies which resulted in the creation of this rating
One of the two movies which resulted in the creation of this rating

In recent discussions with other writers, I’d be asked what I was currently working on. I’d mention the western and mystery specs, and give a thumbnail description for each.

Among the responses I’ve come to expect is usually the follow-up question:  “Who’s your target audience for that?”

Everybody.

While what I write would probably be too much for very small children, there’s no reason it couldn’t be enjoyed by anyone between 8 and 108, as the saying goes.

In addition to all the usual criteria, I want to make sure the story is interesting enough so it would appeal to a wide spectrum of viewers, as well as keeping the content dead-center on that fine line between “not enough” and “too much.”

One writer sent back his notes on the western. He had some very good comments, but some of them seemed to be through a DJANGO UNCHAINED filter (which he also admitted being influenced by). It was suggested I go for a more intense level of violence in some scenes.

Which would be fine if I were writing something that was a hard ‘R’, but this isn’t.

I’m just more of the family-friendly sort, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that kind of material. (FROZEN has earned $350.7 million so far. Not too shabby, with the sing-along version ready to be unleashed.)

Although I want my stories to be fun and exciting, it’s also important to me they respect the audience’s intelligence, no matter what age they are, while also being fairly easy to follow.

I appreciate it when a movie does that, and hope to keep the practice going.

She kicks ass just right

Maximum Z action, characters, determination, feedback, genre, ideas, loglines, protagonist, public forums, screenwriting, script, spec, story, storytelling, westerns, writing
There were too many to choose from, so I opted for a classic example
There were too many to choose from, so I opted for a classic

Encouraging feedback on the western spec continues to roll in, with a recurring theme developing regarding opinions about the main character.

-“calm, cool and witty in the face of danger and indomitable odds”
-“a really great character to get behind”
-“actor bait”

Did I mention the main character is a woman?  More than a few considered that a major plus.

When I first started figuring out the story, which included seeking online help for the logline, anonymous posters on assorted forums pulled no punches in letting me know what a terrible idea they thought it was.

Yet despite all that negativity, I still felt this was a story worth the time and effort to tell. The West was a harsh, brutal place. You had to be tough to survive. Why wouldn’t the women be as tough as the men?

When I write action, I’m hoping to create a sense comparable to a thrilling rollercoaster ride; one that grabs you tight and pulls you along at top speed. Whether the main character behind it all is a man or woman is a non-issue. It really comes down to two things: an entertaining story with three-dimensional characters.

To me, this had both. Being a fan of the genre helped – I know what works, what doesn’t and what I as an audience member would want to see. And as far as I could tell, it was a story that hadn’t been done before.

So I wrote it, and now it’s all about the wait-and-see.

Not surprisingly, articles continue to pop up about how a female main character in an action film is still considered somewhat of a novelty, or that since an action film with a female main character absolutely tanked at the box office, logic can only dictate it was because the main character was female, and not because the story sucked.

Count me among those hoping these ways of thinking will someday not be an issue.