Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it then take nearly five years of rewriting to get this thing into production shape? I seem to remember seeing that in an article somewhere.

I think it really does aspiring writers and Wiig a disservice when the article writers seem to deliberately imply that a total amateur turned out what actually made it to film in five days. First, it insults all of Wiig's hard work, and second, it means every clueless newbie will make her their patron saint for "I don't need to do no stinkin' rewrites! My five days of work is totally awesome!"

not taking anything away from the success or the brilliance of the work, but if you listen to Annie's interview with Jeff Goldsmith, you'll get a better sense for how much they worked on the script after that first draft.

Annie Mumolo on The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. No film's success is based on the screenpaly form, that just makes it easier to read on paper. Same as double spacing. But if it was in single spacing you could still understand it.

I don't know if there are any haters out there making these claims you point out but movies are aboiut stories and ideas. If it was a good enough idea and you had access to the right person, you could write it in crayon if you wanted.

"If it was a good enough idea and you had access to the right person, you could write it in crayon if you wanted."

That's an oft-repeated myth that I invite any aspiring writer to try and report back how successful it is.

But most ideas aren't very good (although the screenplay format is pristine). You think Terence Malick scripts follow the industry format?
The script layout is the least important factor of many.

A good screenplay is about a helluva lot more than "a good idea." Good ideas are a dime a dozen - execution is what makes a good film. That includes structure, and yes, form to a certain extent.

Saying "all I need is a good idea. The structure and presentation are irrelevant" is flat-out wrong. If it wasn't, they'd have shot that first draft.

I'm not saying that. We're not talking about a shooting script or a finished product,I'm saying if you have an idea that makes sense written down like a story (with a beginning middle and end) that is enough to be able to sell it (or not). And if they say No, it won't be because of the layout on the page. Of course you may not have access to someone who is willing to read it, but the writers of Bridesmaids did.

Good ideas aren't a dime a dozen. Have you been to the movies lately? Old ideas are a dime a dozen. Good ideas area memory.

Here's why the script layout IS important to unknown writers, perhaps more important than anything else:

The second a creative/development/studio exec or an agent/manager picks your script up, opens it to the first page and sees that the layout and formatting are incorrect they will more than likely stop reading and throw it away.

Doesn't matter how good the story is, doesn't matter whether your story is even there, if it's not formatted correctly, it's not getting read.

For one thing, while Wiig and Mumolo may not have known screenwriting per se, all their experience in improv had to give them a fantastic grounding in storytelling, and that counts for a hell of a lot.

For another thing, I would be very, very surprised if Judd Apatow didn't do some reworking of the script himself.

With Bitter on this.. Saying 5 days definitely downplays the quality and time put in. Earlier articles was here on GITS.

http://www.gointothestory.com/2011/05/audio-interview-annie-mumolo.html

Ey Bitter and Mood... your little tiff here will have no resolution - - because you're both in the right.

It's an argument as old as time and one that a scriptwriter must have internally with his or herself before ever stepping up to the plate.

Bitter is correct because we upstarts have enough stacked against us in the first place. To thumb one's nose at proper form and structure is to accept your place in Amateurville. Suck it up and learn the rules... they ain't that tough.

And Mood is correct because the idea is "the thing" and yes, good ones are rare indeed. Most of what we get is regurgitation of that which has come before. That's an issue that Hollywood will have to address internally sooner rather than later, I fear. The public is already "on to them" in some ways. As an ex-car salesman, I know you can't shit a shitter forever.

Either way, I must make a point of seeing Bridesmaids, only because it's been coming up here on GITS almost daily! :)

I'm glad everyone else has commented on the fact that this thing actually went through years of re-writes.

OK, this is a serious question: what is the "great idea" that sold Bridesmaids? I don't think the logline is that easy to write, and it's not really a high concept story. Something like: A depressed woman, suffering from low self-esteem has to fight with a seemingly perfect woman to become the top bridesmaid at her best friend's wedding.

That doesn't sound like an idea that sells itself. The original script, by the way, didn't include the famous shit/vomit sequence.

Several things. First articles like this, as noted by others, do a huge disservice to the screenwriting craft because any Tom, Dick and Harry reading it would think they can pound out a hit movie with hardly any training or understanding of story.

The facts, also as noted by others, are both Wiig and Mumolo have extensive training in improvisation, both members of the Groundlings, work as actors in both TV and film, and are part of the whole Apatow creative clan. Clearly they are talented so even if they didn't get an MFA from USC, they must have some innate understanding of story and what makes a movie work in order to come up something like Bridesmaids in the first place.

BTW you can read more about Wiig here and Mumolo here, both of their IMDB bio pages.

The facts are also - again as noted by others - after that first draft W&M pounded out in six days, they rewrote the script multiple times in conjunction with feedback from Apatow and we may assume others in his creative group.

So in fact, the perception that W&M knocked out a draft in six days, not knowing anything about screenwriting, and that was the script they shot for the movie is just wrong.

On the other point, as much as I understand and sympathize with TBSR about screenplay form and format -- I can only imagine the chaos of material script readers have to wade through with much of it virtually unreadable -- there is a downside for writers that can come with becoming fixated on form, format, paradigms, and the like. Perfecting [if that's even possible] one's understanding in this area does not necessarily translate into an ability to write a great story. Indeed it does not even translate into an ability to understand what it takes to write a great story.

At some point, writers need to dig into and analyze the guts of scripts and their movies that get produced. Stories are organic and it requires work to try to understand why they work.

A screenplay is not a widget. It's not like algebra. Should you learn everything you can about screenwriting theories and screenplay form / style? Almost assuredly so unless you were born with a screenwriter's soul, spirit and writing ability. But that's not the end game. Rather the end game is to nail a great story. And story transcends form, format, theories, paradigms, and everything else.

Hence this: Deep Focus: The Go Into The Movies Project. The importance of immersing oneself in the world of cinema. Read script. Watch movies. And it's a great idea to read a script while you watch the movie. Do a scene-by-scene breakdown of the movie. Track the plot points. Look at the subplots. Track the arcs of all the major characters. Look how they handle themes. Everything that goes into analyzing a script and/or a movie, that should be a regular part of your commitment to immersing yourself in the craft of screenwriting.

And as I have said to people who email me about this movie that 'sucks' or that movie that 'stinks,' everyone has a right to their own opinion about the relative merits of a movie from an artistic standpoint. But a screenwriter has to go beyond that. Even if we don't like a movie, we need to understand why they work. As I said in the OP, Bridesmaids may not make your socks go up and down, but any movie that does $140M+ deserves your attention. What about it works as a story? What about it connected with audience?

So rant over. It's all good. Trust the process. And congratulations to Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, not only for writing a hit movie, but shaking up Hollywood's conventional wisdom.

Okay, here was my point in saying "ideas are cheap." In both interviews and in person, I've heard many a working writer roll their eyes at that notion, usually citing an incident that follows as such:

Said writer mentions his profession at a party. A fellow unknown to that writer says, "Hey, I've got a great idea for a movie! How about I give it to you, you write it up and we'll split it 50-50?" This story usually ends with the working writer straining not to be incredibly insulted at the proposal.

Ideas:
4 teenage guys make a pact to get laid before prom.

Two teens experience trouble getting beer to a high school party so they can impress girls.

A case of mistaken identity has a couple on a date night hunted by cops and crooks.

Those are ideas, but are they story? Do they trump the work that goes into the structure and execution of said ideas?

A thousand people could have come up with those ideas, but only a few could have executed them as successful films.

THAT is what I'm trying to express when I say ideas are cheap. It takes more than a good idea - scribbled in crayon or not - to make a good script.

I'll go along with this thread de-rail and agree with Bitter Script Reader:

Script presentation is key. Otherwise expert filmmakers wouldn't be so obsessed with re-writes.

Also, I know a thousand wannabe-artists who are great idea men but never take the time to actually BECOME artists.

I have one friend in particular that calls himself a writer but he never writes. He has some pretty cool ideas but out of the two of us I'm published and he's not.

I may not be a genius idea man, but I work my ass off. Now I'm actually getting paid.

Interesting concept.

Go Bitter Script Guy!

Note: I also wrote this post drunk. Yes I'm getting my Hemingway on.

Just so I'm clear, I am not in any way diminishing TBSR's points - and others - that a writer must learn proper screenwriting form. Anyone who has followed this blog for more than a few months knows I am stickler for writers having their act together on all fronts in order to submit a professional quality script to Hollywood readers. Moreover I think I have made abundantly clear my respect for script readers, especially TBSR, as they have a [largely] thankless job while serving a necessary function: Hollywood's gatekeepers.

My point is very specific: Knowing script format does not in and of itself translate into knowing how to write a good screenplay. The same pertains to knowing this or that screenplay paradigm or this or that screenwriting theory. It's great to learn all of that. But does that knowledge qualify you, me or anybody else to write a great script? No, it doesn't.

Let's look at it this way, using left-brain [logic, sequence] / right-brain [intuition, Gestalt] as a metaphor:

Left-brain is screenplay format, screenwriting theory, screenplay paradigms, even screenwriting style (although I would argue that is impacted over time by the right-brain).

Right-brain is feeling your characters, hearing their dialogue, brainstorming, delving into themes, contacting the heart and soul of your story.

We need both. In fact, we use both together when we watch a movie or read a script, breaking it down, experiencing it from its insides-out and outsides-in.

The main issue as I see it is that all that right-brain stuff is not easily definable, not quantifiable. Unlike format or paradigms, which we can download and study, what right-brain work basically boils down to is doing it. Are there ways to engender that process and use those muscles? Yes. But it's still about something that is fleeting, illusory, more a feeling than a concept, magic than hard knowledge.

So we can tend to gravitate toward left-brain activities because at least there we do have some guidelines, standards, and recognizable patterns. Much safer. Feels like we're on more solid ground.

But all of us need both left and right brain working to write a story.

Circling back to Bridesmaids (my God, that is where this whole thread started!), we could, I suppose, think of the 6-page script Wiig & Mumolo knocked out as an exercise largely with their right-brain. The rewrites involved both parts.

Or something like that.

I'll agree with Scott's comment and offer up some 3000 immaculately-formatted-but-creatively-terrible scripts as supporting evidence.

On the other hand, that's still preferable to the few hundred atrociously-formatted-AND-creatively-bankrupt scripts I've seen.

I hope to God I didn't sound like I was arguing a right-brain only position. I've always been one who feels my way through creativity and learning. However, within the last few years I have taught myself how to write screenplays—and in whatever way you come to it, beats and plot-points matter.

They just do.

@Nick: Echoing your sentiments, that saying I fling around the blog from time to time. "There's no right way to write." We all do whatever we can to find a good story... then write the hell out of it so it's a great story."

I don't at all question that "Bridesmaids" works, or that the script evidences skill and craft. What I question is the story of how it came about. We all know that stars' publicists, as well as thosee of the movies they play in, conjure up "press details" to wow and woo the audience. Wouldn't it be a great publicity stunt to claim an SNL star wrote the script "in six days?" I find it interesting she doeesn't bother to name the book that supposedly helped them so much. I'm not suggesting she didn't write it; just that the actual details of this "miraculous feat" are probably embellished with the usual Hollywood airbrushing.

Hollywood, cry wolf too long and we just don't come running.

@Lisa: You sound like a Hollywood veteran! And you could very well be right. This is a town where they trumpeted a new young screenwriter, all of 19 years old, when in fact it turned out she was 27. I'm sure somebody remembers the details of that story, probably from the early 90s as I recall.

Man, now THIS is a comment thread!

Look, Wiig was already successful in the entertainment industry and had the contacts to nurture her script to fruition.

That doesn't mean, however, that the woman isn't talented or that the movie isn't terrific (it is). Besides, I read somewhere that Wiig struggled more than a bit BEFORE getting to a place where anyone would show interest in her ideas.

Scott - by coincidence I'm rereading "Billion Dollar Kiss - The Kiss That Saved Dawson's Creek and other Adventures in TV Writing" by UNC alum Jeffrey Stepakoff and not 20 minutes ago I came across the passage that discusses that writer.

Her name was Riley Weston and at the age of 32, she worried that she was too old so she claimed to be 19 and got hired on Felicity. The producers, her agents and even the Touchstone execs "so felt she was an authentic teenage voice that they gave her an additional $300,000 development deal to create new shows. Entertainment Weekly listed her as one of Hollywood's 100 Most Creative People before she was found out."

I'm sure a google search will uncover much more, but those are the basics.

@TBSR: Holy crap! That is precisely the story. I can remember that article in the Daily Variety, complete with her photo. Riley Weston. Totally her. Her Wikipedia page. Evidently she's gone on to become a novelist. And she's bleached her hair blonde (I remember her photo being a brunette).

@sean1: You know I've never really concerned myself with the number of comments on my posts. I'm not trying to instigate controversy just to generate page count, click-throughs, comments or what have you. My goal is to provide solid information about screenwriting in Hollywood, honor screenwriters and the craft, offer up inspiration from time to time, and occasionally give writers a reason to chuckle. Based on site visits and emails, I'm satisfied I'm making a small, yet meaningful impact.

But perhaps I'm missing the boat. Maybe I should go all sensationalist. How about some of these possible post subjects:

* Should I sacrifice cute puppies in a blood pact with a witch's coven to help sell my spec script?

* Sex tips for screwing and wooing your agent [including the mysterious Venus Butterfly Position]!

* Dilaudid vs Oxycontin: Which drug should I target for my inevitable professional crash and burn?

On second thought, I think I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.

Scott - these days you can't find a legitimate witches' coven that'll do a puppy sacrifice. You'll need a voodoo practitioner for that.

Also, it helps if the puppy's aren't adorable. I've seen many a voodoo sacrifice aborted because the agent lost his nerve in the face of big brown puppy dog eyes.

@TBSR: Okay, baby seals then. Would that work?

I'm a recovering Mormon. We just straight up sacrifice babies.

Didn't you know?

Seriously, I am a Mormon. And seriously, I just took that too far.

Awesome.

Scott, I think it's interesting when you point out Mummolo and Wiig's sketch and improv experience, but in the same breath say that their knowledge of story must somehow be "innate."

Maybe I'm missing the point, but one problem I have with writers' discussions of things like "structure" and "presentation" is that it often seems like code -- not for the right/left brain, but as a page count issue. If you haven't sat in front of that screen and done your time, well then you aren't really a writer.

I'd argue the opposite. If you haven't made an audience laugh, then you are not a comedy writer.

A live audience can teach you more in one night than any writing group or seminar. A career spent physically putting yourself into the comedy -- that is real training. When every night, you are working those muscles by trimming sketches, perfecting jokes, and pulling the maximum funny out of every character (with instant feedback) the result is not some haphazard assemblage of quirky talents. The result is someone like Kristen Wiig, a Jedi master of funny.

So let's not pretend we've got anything on her because our page count is higher.

@Tad: Believe me, having been a performer on stage for 9 years before screenwriting, 7 as a musician, 2 as a stand-up, I think I have a fairly good grasp of the value of that live interactive experience.

Re "innate" versus "learned" ability at doing comedy, it's sort of a chicken-and-egg thing: I don't think you can succeed as a comic if you don't have at least some natural instinct in that direction. Obviously you can develop it as Wiig has done with her work with the Groundlings and SNL.

Re page count: I'm afraid you lost me there. If what you're suggesting is that some writers would claim to have more of an inside track on what works in a screenplay because they have more extensive practice writing scripts, when in fact -- speaking strictly to comedy -- a person who has spent a lot of time in the front lines of improv work actually has more... what... talent / instinct / ability / understanding of what works? Yes? No? Maybe?

If I'm understanding your point at all, I doubt blanket statements carry much water. Some improv and stand-up talents can turn into great screenwriters, others not. Some screenwriters who have zero experience performing on stage can turn into great writers, others not.

I do know this: At some point, the funny has to come through on the page. How to do that? Always the challenge, yes?

Final point riffing off your comment: When I work with writers who are trying to bust into the comedy field, I always recommend they take improv classes. Many, many reasons why, perhaps the single most important one being when you finally begin to grasp what works, what makes people laugh, hopefully you can carry that with you when you write pages. I know this: I won many debates over whether this line or that scene was funny based upon this simple fact: I had performed on stage and made people laugh. That's kind of a trump card when dealing with execs and producers who have never done stand-up or improve.

When I say a good idea is more important than standardized format layout, I don't mean a logline. By idea I mean the whole story. If I know nothing about scenes or acts, or turning points or whatever, and I just tell you a story, from beginning to end, that's interesting and keeps your attention, then that is more important than knowing it should be 120 pages long with this happening on page 15 and that hapening on page 22.

The layout may help people understand what you're saying on paper, and it may help the writer clarify the story, but there are people quite capable of coming up with a story idea (a whole story, not a logline) without ever having seen a script. And there are also pleanty of people who have a complete understanding of screenplay structure and theory who couldn't write an interesting film to save their lives (how many screnplay gurus have won an Oscar?).

A good story is a good story. I don't know if Bridesmaids is that, there could be all sorts of reasons why it got made and as mentioned this whole 'we had to buy a book' angle could be complete BS. But they certainly had lots of funny ideas (NOT loglines) and that's more important than a copy of Final Draft. Well, that and knowing Judd Apatow helps.

Oh man, I totally missed all the great discussions today! If I may chime in with a couple of thoughts:

Bridesmaids (the movie, not the script) was sold on the one-word title and the poster with the girls in pink dresses. And it's important to note that there are ONLY females on the poster. And, they all stare at us with attitude. They seem to be saying “We're fucking bridesmaids, you got a problem with that?”

Brilliant.

We learn that there should be irony in our loglines, here there's irony on the poster. From a marketing standpoint that was the key. It stood out from the mass of other crap that our beloved industry spews out. I do believe that the concept was king (or queen, ha ha) in this case.

As screenwriters, we shouldn't underestimate what a great one-sheet can do to sell a movie and therefore we should keep that in mind as we write our specs. The first thing a studio executive is going to think is “How can we sell this?” You better have a great concept that can be summed up in a sentence or two and a great title to go with it. Everything trickles down from that.

There's a great scene in Ed Wood with the hack producer who offers Ed Wood a job, and Ed Wood asks: “Is there a script?” And the producer replies: “Fuck no. But there's a poster. It opens in nine weeks in Tulsa.” We laugh at that but it's not far from the truth.

Needless to say, a concept is not enough to make a great script or a movie. But without that one idea that is easily translated into people conscious in mere seconds, you're at a severe disadvantage when it comes to getting people to support you. And with people, I mean everyone from the reader who has to write coverage of your script, to the studio greenlighting the project, to the movie going public who are looking at movie ads in the paper come Friday night.

"Bride of the Atom!"

"The Ghoul Goes West!"

"Doctorrrrr...Acula!"

Whaddya' think Teddy? Do we have a deal?

;)

@Teddy: I posted something way back when on the value of thinking of a one-sheet. You've inspired me to see if I can dredge that up. And/or update/write another post.

A producer once told me he never committed to a project unless he could 'see' the one-sheet in his mind.

In an era when marketing is such a critical component to a movie's success, a discussion about one-sheets is an important one. Thanks for bringing it up.

Oh an argument!!!! Let me in!

I read Bridesmaids the other day. Dated 8/12/09 with only Annie Mumulolo listed as the writer.

There were typos galore. Grammatical issues. And a baffling consistent use of 'your' instead of 'you're' and vice versa.

Didn't matter.

The structure was there. The script was funny. And more importantly, the central conflict was evident from the get-go, relatable, and felt new.

Surprisingly new at what I thought was a completely tapped well.

And I'm not going to argue -- it's only because of who soandso is -- that's the business this is.

Pairing your writing with talent that can get a movie made is ALWAYS going to be the struggle of a screenwriter.

And "talent" "credits" "background" is all a matter of perception.

I'm sure Kristen Wiig was getting a lot of, "She writes?" befuddled looks from executives before Bridesmaids. Annie Mumulo has credits for the Bewitched remake. I'm sure she wasn't anyone's first choice for anything.

A lot of serendipity and hard work came together to make Bridesmaids what it was onscreen.

Furthermore, it also opened a door that was previously shut. And that's ALWAYS a good thing, regardless of who the writer was.

There was uproar a few years back when a big mucky muck studio head said he'd never back a feature with a female lead. It may have been crude, but the reality has been that original movies with female leads don't make more than their male counterparts.

At least Bridesmaids challenged that convention.

There also wasn't a single female in that cast that was thought of as someone who could open a movie. Now both Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy can open whatever project they want.

I think it's an awesome accomplishment.

Speaking of "perception" -- was at Universal Studios the other day -- I'm such a kid!

Jerry Lee from K-9 is one of the famous Universal animal actors on the placards in the tram line.

He was across from iconic monster films like Legosi's Dracula and The Mummy.

Next to other iconic animal figures like Sara, Duckie, Littlefoot, and Fifel, and Einstein (which was just a poor attempt to smuggle Michael J. Fox onto the board). But Jerry Lee, didn't need Jim Belushi. Jerry Lee is an icon in his own right.

James wrote: "There also wasn't a single female in that cast that was thought of as someone who could open a movie. Now both Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy can open whatever project they want."

Echoing a point I've been making all along and one of the reasons the movie business is so interesting: Hollywood is filled with conventional wisdom, then along come filmmakers who do something that defies the CW, and boom -- a whole new wrinkle in the paradigm.

And it all started with the story concept. Here's the IMDB logline:

"Annie (Kristen Wiig), is a maid of honor whose life unravels as she leads her best friend, Lillian (Maya Rudolph), and a group of colorful bridesmaids (Rose Byrne, Melissa McCarthy, Wendi McLendon-Covey and Ellie Kemper) on a wild ride down the road to matrimony."

Meanwhile I'll be posting the latest spec sale at the top of the hour. Logline: It's described as "Die Hard" in an alien spaceship.

Wow Scott.

I can't believe, after all these years, they still use "It's DIE HARD in a [blank]" to describe, pitch, and sell a movie.

It's been a quarter century for heaven's sake!

That sucker casts a long dark shadow, eh?

Well, better get back to the script I'm penning.

It's, um, Die Hard on a haunted cruise liner.

Scott, although I think the sacrificing of a few cute puppies may indeed generate some controversy, I, like you, prefer the site just as it is.