Seeing as it's Labor Day here in the States and most folks are probably away from keyboards, I'll open things up with a few observations:

* For an action script, there is a remarkable 'gap' between action scenes in Act One: There is the opening battle which ends on 7, and then nothing else until Maximus escapes from the assassins on 32. In between, a whole lot of set up, which is to be expected in a story's first act, but 25 pages between action scenes defies the infamous "Whammo Theory" (something has to go 'whammo' every 10 minutes in an action movie).

* Another interesting gap: Maximus, the story's Protagonist and star of the movie, has zero dialogue from 31-56. Not one line. Lots of "Maximus doesn't respond" scene description. Almost entirely due to his psychological reaction to his family's murders, but a most interesting and unusual choice.

* The ending is considerably different than the movie and interestingly enough, the script's ending is more 'Hollywood' than the movie. Typically the studios want to push for 'happier' endings -- the script has Maximus return to his farm with Lucilla's son Lucius, "this boy so like his own son," to rebuild his life. In the movie, Maximus dies. So at some point, somebody determined the story needed to have an heroic death ending, despite Hollywood's instinct for 'happy' endings [pun intended].

Really surprised to see that the third act in the script is completely different from what ended up in the movie. I'm not sure which one I like better. I do like how in the movie there is that build-up to the final battle between Maximus and Commodus. While it is probably unrealistic to ever see an emperor fight a gladiator, it feels like a stronger climax between our protagonist and antagonist.

It was very surprising to see that he survives in this, but actually dies in the movie. It's not just a death though; he dies for the greater of mankind. (This is probably the only way that you can kill your hero when he is extremely sympathetic and likeable) He is the savior of Rome and now will be immortalized in his death. Those are some huge stakes.

The other thing that was interesting was the action lines. In this script, the action lines seemed more general. I bet that a lot of this had to do with Ridley Scott and his shooting style. He likes to shoot massive battles so it wouldn't make sense to map it out exactly in the script. For example, on page 82, the line reads "The sword play is very fast -- they block and parry and hack
like lightning -- constantly attacking -- they are perfectly
matched --"
I have seen it in some scripts (SALT is one I can think of) where the lines are literally "He punches left, does a spin, then punches right, etc..." This script is more of outlining the fight and letting the choreographers do their own work. It still gets the idea across very well.

Two good points, Adam:

* Re the changed ending, there is something quite powerful behind the Tragic Hero's Death, especially in self-sacrifice. Think Braveheart or even Jesus Christ.

Actually if I'm remembering correctly, both the movie versions of Braveheart and Gladiator do something similar in their Protagonist's death scenes: Both of them flash to an image that suggests something of eternity. William Wallace, as he dies, 'sees' his wife (who was killed) in the crowd of onlookers, suggesting he's going to 'meet' her in death. Maximus reprises that visual he has in the very beginning of the movie, his hand drifting across a field of grain, only in the ending when we see that, it reveals his home and family (also now dead) as if - again - he is going to join them in death. Clearly a way the filmmakers figured they could provide an upbeat bit of business to balance out the sadness of the P's death.

* Action description is tricky, many variables. Is it a selling script? A shooting script? What type of director? Are they highly detailed oriented like Hitchcock who literally would tell his writers shot by shot what he wanted or more generalists? Depending upon the circumstances, the writer may need more or less description.

In general, the approach we see in this draft of Gladiator is the acceptable one. Provide just enough specificity to give the moment some realism, but do not choreograph every blow as that is simply too much for a reader to wade through.

Caveat: If the scene requires a character to do a specific action in order to make a specific thing happen -- such as a final death blow or striking an object to make it go here or there -- then yes, you need to spell that out in scene description. Otherwise general action / specific tone.

In every story (independent of where the story starts on the page or on screen) there was once a state where everything was 'perfect' so to speak. This 'State of Perfection' is where all was possible for the hero and its surroundings. The state where nothing 'dramatic' has (yet) happened.

In all stories this state of perfection is disturbed (usually by the Villain or certain circumstances). The hero then tries to restore this state of perfection. The story will not end, until this has been accomplished.

In Gladiator, the state of perfection existed when Rome was in peace. This state has been disturbed by the constant warfare that Marcus talks about in the script. He wants Maximus to become emperor, to restore peace and be just to the people.

Until Rome has been restored to this state, the story will not end.

Maximus' own state of perfection was when he was with his wife and son. Since he left them behind to go on campaign, the state of perfection was mildly disturbed. This state could only be restored by Maximus reuniting with his family.

Maximus' yearning to be with his family is so strong that he turns down the offer to become emperor.

Then, Commodus shows up, Maximus' biggest rival. First he kills his father, then he tries to kill maximus and then kills maximus' family and becomes emperor himself.

Now things have drastically changed. Commodus took away Maximus' most important thing in the world -- his family.

To restore the original state of perfection there is really only one way. Commodus has to die, and maximus has to die, since there is no other way for him to be with his family (in his case, join them in death). Also, Rome has to have a just emperor.

In the movie this is done better than in the script in my opinion, since, although Maximus dies, it is a 'happy ending' for Maximus. The only way for him to be happy is to be with his family, which means he has to die to join them.

This is built up in the movie with the dream sequences. In this case the movie ending appeals more to me than the script ending, because it's more 'satisfying'.

The fact that Commodus is killed by Maximus is pretty standard and happens in nearly every revenge movie.

Rome is 'saved' by Lucilla, who at the last moment chooses the 'good' side.

Generally, I feel that the script could use some trimming in the description and also in the dialogues at the start of the script.

In terms of an action movie, this movie follows the beats of Braveheart very closely, which is also an 'epic' action movie. Notice that the moment Maximus discovers that his family is dead (around 45 minutes) is the exact moment Wallace discovers his wife is dead in Braveheart.

One of the most important things in an action movie (besides the spectacular action sequences) is the inner struggle of the hero and I think that they did a pretty good job with Maximus. His main motivation is revenge, but we get a chance to get know him as a brave but humble family man, respected by his men and the emperor. Not all revenge driven movies succeed in this, because they usually do not spend enough time to make the hero likable in the eyes of the viewer.

Scott: I hadn't consciously clocked the large silence Maximus endures mid-script but have often wondered about it hazily. It's so unusual and I think it's one of the things that elevates Gladiator over most action/historical movies - the kind of move that puts it on that higher level.

Basically, you could say this film is an 'epic': chariots, battles, the future of Rome at stake. Yet compared to most that deserve that tag it is very often small. Maximus' escape from the assasins is one man killing four - hardly Ben Hur.

I think the films gets its epic feel in far more clever ways, ways that you can see on the page rather than being choreographed by a director later. It's not a classic 'all is lost' point but it is still pretty awful when your hero has been cast onto the wrong continent, enslaved to boot, by the start of act two.

What I think I'm saying is that this screenplay expertly manipulates the peaks and troughs (for its characters and audience). It steers an unerring course from one dying Caesar to the next and succeeds because it never stops hammering its audience over the head (in an artful manner, of course) with the simple message: Maximus is a great man but powerless, Commodus is a terrible man but has power without equal.

Lastly, I don't know if the idea of allowing yourself one big coincidence per script is attributed to any guru in particular, but its an interesting 'rule'. Gladiator seems to have one pretty whopping one: that Maximus, of all the fates that could befall him on returning to Spain, becomes enslaved as a Gladiator whilst Commodus chooses a massive Gladitorial smackdown to show the love to his people his Dad never gave him. It's a whopping one, but for me it's entirely forgivable in this script (which really entertained - I haven't seen the film in a while)

Really enjoyed reading this scriptt, although I must confess that I didn’t like the ending. Scott described it as ‘Hollywood’ and that is exactly what I thought upon reading it.

Juba in the film (as far as I remember – and my memory is terrible) had his own arc in that his association with Maximus enables him to return to his homeland at the end (although I’ll admit I may have miss-remembered that. Watching the film next weekend so will soon find out). That, among other things, didn’t come across in this version of the script.

I also agree with Adam that the action sequences sometimes slipped into summary, which, on the whole, didn’t bother me too much, but at times I felt that not enough telling details were injected to give the action more definition, although if this had occurred the script would have probably been quite a bit longer.

There is the theme of father-son relationship through out, and the desire to be remembered, or at least remembered well. I think the ancient Greeks had a word for that: Kleos.

Have to admit that I didn’t pick up on the first two points Scott made. I guess I was so engrossed with the story I just didn’t notice. I’m toying with reading the script again so I can concentrate more on the technical side of things rather than getting carried away with the tale.

The one thing that did leap out at me when I first started reading – and perhaps I should expand on this tomorrow when we discuss structure – was the early scene involving Commodus and Lucilla being placed right at the beginning. Can definitely see why this was moved in the edit and replaced with the opening battle scene.

But overall I liked it apart from the third act.

I hope that my reflections and analysis of scripts strengthens over time. It would be great to look back at this post in a years time and think – wow! I’ve come a long way since that crappy first post!

@madeuppeople - Totally agree re. the coincidence! That did cross my mind at one point (then disappeared without trace).

This movie is one my my favorite of all movies, along with "City Lights" and "Amadeus"

When I used to work at the CBS in Hollywood on Fairfax and Beverly I would walk over to the WGA library on my lunch breaks. "Gladiator" was the first script I picked up. A great place to visit if you're in LA, or to bring your laptop and write!

The script I read was the final shooting script. The second I picked it up I couldn't set it down. So reading this version was great to examine the differences.

What I learned from this experience off the bat, is to just write! It will all change once other writers, directors, actors and editors get there hands on it.

From what I remember Russell Crowe was the one that chose the name for his character in this movie. I believe it was his interview on "Inside the Actor's Studio" he talked about it in great detail...
But don't quote me on it. I don't have time to watch it now, I'm off to a Labor Day BBQ!
But here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrJog4xde2s

Good stuff, everyone. Enlightening analysis. Makes me glad already we've decided to do this new series.

@Nitro1976: Ah, you're speaking my language as the metaphor of perfection serves both a thematic and psychological function in the story. I don't think I can improve at all on your take on that. Excellent insight.

Re your last point about the "inner struggle of the hero": Certainly pertains to action movies, but probably extends to all genres as well. I describe it going from Disunity to Unity, the most typical iteration of Protagonist metamorphosis (or transformation per Joseph Campbell and The Hero's Journey) I know of.

What are Maximus' Disunity aspects:

* He is a warrior and a family man, literally separated from his wife and son for two years.

* He is a soldier, even worse an almost Emperor, then a slave.

* He is a gladiator who kills when he must, but when given the choice, refuses time and again to slaughter his victims ("Maximus the merciful!")

Vamping off your notion of perfection, if we look at Unity being the psychological variation on that state, then both endings -- script and movie -- attempt to take the Protagonist there. The movie version offers much more closure, not a life with a facsimile of his son with Lucilla's boy Lucius [as in the script we read], but rather joining his wife and son in death. Indeed how can Maximus experience true Unity while alive? It's almost a question of logic, isn't it, as much as aesthetics why the Tragic Hero Death works in the film.

At a most basic level, one big takeaway from "Gladiator" is the importance of exploring characters' inner lives. Without that depth, the actions and events become meaningless. I mean imagine Maximus doing what he does as a gladiator without his goal to gain revenge against Commodus.

That "inner struggle" of which you speak is critical in virtually every story.

Ha! on me. I read half the script last week, duly noting little differences from script to screen. Then today I read the second half of the script. Whoa. Talk about changes!

It was an intriguing read because I sure didn't see THAT "Gladiator" onscreen!

I really enjoyed the second-draft third-act action in the bowels of the Colosseum. Great bit with the butchery, the drain and so forth. The draft ending also paid off all the foreshadowing glimpses of underground labyrinths and heavy equipment and made use of Proximo's familiarity with them.

But I agree that the draft ending was more "Hollywood" than the film version... the massacre of gladiators with the one fighter reaching to touch the statue of Mars, the old army captain (Proximus) taking up his sword again as an ally, the strange "raining blood" bladder spectacle in the Colosseum and the Roman legion riding in to save the day. Plus, I sensed way too early from a bit of conspiracy dialogue pretty much how it would play out. That can't be good.

So, aside from losing what surely would have been an amazing spectacle at the end, I felt the film's mano-a-mano duel between Maximus and Commodus -- witnessed by the Roman populace -- was more satisfying. The hero held in his hands, alone, the fate of the entire western civilized world. So huge stakes, and all on Maximus. Along those same lines, I felt the heroic death of Maximus while fulfilling his mentor's dying vision of restoring the Roman republic was extremely satisfying. The bookend images of him returning "home" were emotionally moving for me.

The draft script answered some questions that nagged at me after I saw the movie. What happened to Lucilla's husband? Why was she down on her father and supportive of the people via the senate? Where were Commodus' delusional rants about being father to all his citizen "children" heading? On the other hand, the script developed some buddy moments among the gladiators that didn't reveal too much about them, and I noticed those were trimmed out along the way. On the whole, the final version (the film) seemed more elegant and efficient, as you would hope.

The element I missed most in the script was the patricide scene. In the movie, that creepy hug of death was so very powerful. As was the slimy sexual tension between Commodus and Lucilla, which made that guy ever so much more loathsome as an antagonist.

Thanks, Scott, for this great new study series. I will learn a lot.

@madeuppeople: A enormous coincidence!!! I wrote in the margins of my script when Commodus announced his decision to do the Games, "Why?" He goes on to elaborate his rationale on the next page, but right at that point I had the same reaction as you, and it sniffed very much of 'writer's convenience': Commodus decides to bring back gladiator games because the plot needs it to happen to intersect he and Maximus.

But in the end, clearly people weren't bothered by it. Perhaps as you say, the 'one coincidence per story' axiom is in play here. I also wonder if it's a sleight of hand by the filmmakers. Track this action:

27: Marcus dies [major reversal as Maximus will not be Emperor]

29: Quintus 'arrests' Maximus

30-32: Maximus fights off assassination attempt

34-35: Intercut Maximus riding and family being killed

36: He's a slave

It's like the story has been tootling along in first gear, lots of setup and exposition, then boom, boom, boom, boom, one BIG THING after another, almost as if the filmmakers figured they could shroud the coincidence of Maximus being enslaved -- on his own home property!! -- by "Beduoin brigands." Basically slip that past us with a breathless sequence of action.

@Sean: That's a good point re the father-son dynamic. Certainly in play in the script -- Marcus even calls Maximus "son" in the scene before he dies, and Maximus says, "You have always been my father" [23].

I wonder if that's present in the movie?

And all the references in the script to Lucius, even as he barges in on his mother with her secret meeting with Gracchus, Gaius, and Marcellus, all of that to serve the script's ending where Maximus achieves that iteration's version of unity: Maximus with Lucius who represents his dead son.

I wonder if Lucius' role in the movie is scaled back seeing as that is not the end point of Maximus' journey. Indeed I just went online to see Maximus' death in the film, and there is no imagery of his son anywhere, but there are some shots of his wife. Indeed it is she he reaches out for with his bloody hand and a smile before he topples over dead.

Must. Watch. Movie. Again...

I think that the steps taken after this script to what we saw on screen really mad the film alot better. Obviously the ending of the film is a ton better with the Maximus dying instead of the "Hey lets go and start growing some grapes." Maximus had to die, he had nothing left to live for. His son and wife were dead and his soul purpose, the reason he fought to stay alive was to get his last chance at redemption.

Now on the other side, and I think the more interesting side is the antagoinst, Commodus. In this script, he is really just a whinny bitch who never acts on anything and is really all talk. Without him stabbing Maximus at the end of the movie, his character is really all talk and never actually does anything. Just complains about Maximus and the people of Rome.

At the same time, in the script there was never really a moment where the audience felt that Maximus wouldn't complete his goal. He escapes Rome and then just gets his army and raises some hell. With him getting stabbed and having to fight Commodus, the audience gets that "he might actually fail" feeling which is great and gets them in the palm of the writer.

I'm sure most people know this, but Oliver Reed (Proximo) actually died during the filming of Gladiator, and I know they spent about 3 million dollars to recreate his face in some scenes, but I'm not sure how that affected the script.

Either way, I think Maximus had to die, and Commodus needed to to stab him to give the full arc of his character.

The things I noted after having read the script and watched the movie:

1) In terms of readability I thought the script was great. It had a nice flow and I don't think I stopped once because it got to cluttered or boring.(This might be a given in the Hollywood world, but it is still something I notice)

2) There are some clear differences from the script to screen, and most of the time I think the things that are changed from script to screen actually makes the movie better. One of the things I like is that in the script it never says that Commodus kills his father, but in the movie they show him "death hugging" his father and it is a very strong image that makes you hate the antagonist more.

3) You already talked about it, but the ending is one of the changes I believe are for the better. It makes it more plausible to me that he doesn't make it out of there alive, even though you want him to, and the fact that he sacrifices himself for the greater good of the idea he believes in, is the best way to kill your protagonist. Even if it is possible to keep him alive, I sometimes feel like it is better to make him sacrifice himself if that is an option.

4. I read on IMDB that another writer added the whole "afterworld" part to the script in order to make Maximus more relateable and likeable and I think it is a great touch. I also read that it was the editors choice to add the "walking through cornfield" picture in the very beginning of the movie, and that is also a great choice if you ask me as it makes the battle seem more significant because the threat of dying is always present during war.

5. In terms of the action I thought it did a great job. It is hard to convey action in a script in a convincing way and I think he went with the best option here of just describing the feel of the battle and leave the choreographing to the ones in charge of filming

Nitro1976 observation is interesting: "State of Perfection".
This I think, is something that resembles Scott's "Disunity to Unity state" from 'BGNarative Throuline'.

I was quite disappointed with the movie ending when I saw the movie for the first time some 11 yrs ago,(I simply wanted the hero to win, not die) though I know that was the perfect or Logical ending
(I defenetly would have LOVED the ending that is written in this draft of screenplay, 11 yrs back)

I am a very bad reader, I took too many gaps to finish this screenplay, but still there are few observations I picked.

The movie I think was so perfect, that anything that I read in the screenplay that is not in the movie just sounded like "its really unnecessary". Example: There are too many fights of the Gladiators during Rome games. This will kill
the buildup of the final battle between Max and Comds.

Something I remember the most is some very silly dialogue (Pg117) Maximus fighting Commodus saying "For My wife!, For my son..."
I dont know how to express this, I just dont like it. Its very ordinary..

Thanks Scott for this gr8 post, there is so much to learn from these comments.

I wonder how many rewrites they wrote to get the final draft.

There is also a very good structure analysis of Gladiator from The StoryDepartment.
http://thestorydepartment.com/structure-gladiator/


I am thinking of reading the Final draft of the film too.
Can sombody help me in getting the final draft??

Another thought that just crossed my mind.

Most of the changes from script to screen, if not all of them, are changes made to the characters. Maximus get's alot of different actions than what is in the script to make his character better and more likeable.

The plot is pretty much the same in the script as it is on screen

I am new to this, so forgive me if my observations seem naive or irrelevant.

The script was so engaging that I forgot to be critical. It was surprising to see so much scene description -- sometimes two full pages without dialogue. More surprising is that I found these descriptions as captivating as the dialogue for the most part. I did cheat, though. By the time Maximus got to the butchery near the end I was getting impatient and I skipped over some of it.

There were three scenes I found to be distracting because I couldn't see their relevance.

On p.34, Lucilla is in Maximus' tent looking around after he has been taken out to be assassinated.

Fortunately, the scene's relevance was disclosed on p.80, when Lucilla gives Maximus his ancestor figurines. I suppose it could also be used to show her regard for Maximus, but that had already been established in previous scenes, I thought.

Immediately after the scene where Juba is trying to get Maximus to eat and admonishing him for having lost the will to live, there is a short scene description: "Maximus and Juba are being observed" by Proximo (p.44). I wasn't sure where this was leading, but on p.45 Proximo tells Maximus that we choose how we die and how we are remembered, a topic that was no doubt prompted by his overhearing the conversation. Maximus then quotes this back to Proximo on p98, while asking him to fight alongside his army. It becomes the rallying cry, so to speak.

There remains one scene, however, whose importance isn't clear. Maximus stops to observe Commodus engaging in a daily ritual of hacking at small trees in sub-zero temperatures (p.19). I can only surmise that this scene was the one to justify the claim that Commodus and Maximus were well matched in their final battle, although I must admit that it didn't work for me. By the time their battle occurred I was asking myself how it was that they were well-matched when we didn't see Commodus engage in any kind of battle. But then again, had I actually seen the ritual rather than just reading about it I'm sure it would have played it's role just fine. The same applies to the other two scenes that interrupted my reading flow. While they seemed out of place when being read, they would most likely have blended perfectly when being viewed.

(Which raises this question: Can you speed-read a script or must you take the time to visualize every scene given that it is written for that medium? Surely professional readers don't have the time to visualize what they are reading. Perhaps a script should be written to be read and updated to be shot.)

The film is a distant memory, but I don't recall anything in the film about creating an army and waging a war at the end. The film's last act, as far as I remember it, seemed more intimate and personal between Maximus and Commodus. If that is the case, then the filmed version better serves the story.

More excellent observations. I'm occupied for the next several hours. Will try to respond with comments later.

Tomorrow I do think we should focus on the script's structure. If someone wants to take a crack at listing the major plot points, that would be great. If not, we can probably work through it in our discussion.

Wow, so many great and thought-provoking comments on this thread already. Some random additions:

1) Structurally what leapt out to me: how much Act 1 felt as much political thriller as action flick. We get complex characters, corruption, power rivalries, quick reversals, and a set-up for the innocent to vanquish the corrupt, with accompanying questions on who is ally and who is enemy. First, we are introduced to the apparent conspirators, Commodus and Lucilla. Then we meet General Maximus, our hero, on his way to battle. Finally we meet the dying Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, a man of mixed motivations who is torn between the "glory of Empire" and the "glory of the Republic."

Loyal General Maximus, unlike his father figure Marcus Aurelius, claims clarity of goals. Maximus is a "soldier not a politician" and his stated goal is to return home. Yet with the power-hungry and scheming Commodus waiting in the wings as heir to the throne, we know it will be hard for our brave general to remain a mere soldier for long.

Next, we learn that Marcus's status as a "good father" to Lucilla is a bit of a fiction, yet in a quick counter to any lingering distaste we may feel for him, Marcus tells Maximus that his intention is to make Maximus Emperor and empower the people through a Senate "reborn." Is the father a good father after all? Has the Emperor seen in death an opportunity to be born again? Or does he merely see in the figure of Maximus a convenient opportunity to unite dual legacies of "Empire" and "Republic"?

And what about our hero? Called to duty, will the soldier become a politician after all?

Not so fast. In a set of quick reversals, Commodus kills his father and erases all evidence of the Emperor's succession plans; on Commodus's orders, loyal lieutenant Quintus turns on Maximus and orders the General and his family assassinated; and Lucilla declares her loyalty to the new Caesar, Commodus.

Barely escaping his assassins, Maximus is too late to save his family. And in a convenient reversal, he ends up a slave, a hired killer whose killing is no longer for any cause but purely for the entertainment of the mob.

By end of Act 1 / beg of 2A we have, courtesy of these dramatic reversals, the perfect setup for a political thriller. The ordinary man, hunted himself, is forced outside the political system in order to save it.

The thriller-esque aspects of the setup--i.e. as opposed to standard action flick setup--really struck me when reading the script. In a way, it's what made the movie so memorable. Even though Ridley Scott et al streamlined many of the overly complex plot lines established in the script, one could argue that it's the political thriller-esque original material that, as with Bourne, give the story and characters a depth and complexity that many other pure action films lack.

2. Like @Judy the script helped clear up several confusions I had. It's clearer that Marcus's responsibility for Lucilla
s husband's death is the root of the tension between the two. The subplot with Lucius is also much more clearly delineated in the script. That said, I actually preferred the way the movie streamlined the characters. As others have noted,by showing his murder of his father, Commodus is more clearly antagonist in the film and Lucilla is more of a "heart" connection for Maximus rather than the script's double dealing femme fatale.

3. Maximus's attachment to the "Ancestors" is also clearer in the script. But I also found the theme of Afterlife, an emphasis the director preferred, more effective overall. I would never have bought that a pure of heart soldier like Maximus does what he does for his Ancestors alone. That his vengeance quest is for his family and will allow him to join his family in Afterlife felt much more believable as motivation.

4. Speaking of which, I was startled to find that the most memorable scene in the movie (in my opinion), i.e. where Russell Crowe kisses his dead wife's feet, isn't in the script. That kiss of the feet had me tearing up for days. Whoever/however they came up with this, it kinda confirms that movie magic is, well,....truly magical.

5. The script highlights what I loved most about the movie -- that the moments of intensity and attachment aren't reliant merely on victory in battle or typical action high and low points but also on psychological "reversals," whether the multiple reversals of characters' intentions in Act 1 to the reversal of Maximus from pure killing machine to Maximus the Merciful (end of Act 2.)

@Shea: Ha! All those years I lived in LA, not more than 5 miles from the WGA building, I never once set foot in the script library. I even give money to the place every year. Never visited it. And so regular people can just go in there and peruse the hard copy of scripts? That's fantastic. Much better and healthier use of your time than chowing down on donuts at Bob's over in the Farmer's Market. As to your bigger point about "just write," concur. With the tiny caveat: "Just write... a great script!"

Hey, here's a glitch with the transition: It has me listed as Admin. Thought we had fixed that before. So any comments you see from admin in this thread, those are from me: Scott.

Wait, now it switched over to Scott. Ha, computer gremlins at work once again!

@Judy: That's a really interesting analysis as it highlights again how on the surface, while it seems illogical for the filmmakers to have changed the ending -- away from a bigger, bolder, bloodier spectacle -- there are thematic aspects tied to the resolution of Maximus' character that trump those considerations. Funny thing is where we might be tempted to think, "Hey, so John Logan must have come up with that whole spectacle ending," while he may have written it, the direction to go that route may have come from elsewhere -- director, studio. He may have simply been executing 'orders' as it were. We wouldn't know for certain unless we heard from him or read an interview in which the subject was covered. But even if the spectacle ending was his idea, he deserves some credit because his articulation of that ending was visual and graphic enough that somebody -- probably R. Scott -- said, "No, I don't want to go this way. Let's make it more about Maximus vs. Commodus, mano-mano." In other words, they may never have got to the ending in the movie had it not been for them going through the process of Logan writing the ending in the draft we read. I haven't read any earlier drafts, but it's also true that the ending in this draft could have been in place from previous writers. If anybody who has read more drafts of the project, please feel free to enlighten us.

@Mark Mazur: I'm glad you raised the point about Commodus being a "whinny bitch." In this draft, he came off as sort of an unsexed Caligula, narcissistic and power hungry to the point of going off his rocker. As a Nemesis, the movie version is much stronger. I'll have more on this in our Wednesday conversation.

@AlexR: That's a great note about the editor adding the whole 'walking through the cornfield' bit of business at the beginning. As you say, it makes the ensuing battle scenes that much more impactful, as we carry with us Maximus' dream of going home. But also creates a powerful setup for the ending, where Maximus is dying and calls back those very images. The film's editor is Pietro Scalia - and if that was, indeed, his idea, he earned a hefty chunk of his salary right there with that creative choice.

@S.Kalyan Tagore: Your comment about the dialogue on 117 is spot on. The thing is, if you read a bunch of scripts while watching their film versions, you see this type of thing all the time, where the writer has written a line or lines of dialogue to make something explicit, but when they shot and edited the movie, it became apparent the line or lines are simply not necessary. I'm not sure if you can 'blame' the writer. Our job is to tell the story with as much verve and visuals as possible, but also to make it as clear as possible, too. It's hard to know how all of that will translate onto film via the actors' performances, the cinematography, the editing and so forth. Read Shawshank in comparison to the movie. There must be at least 10% more dialogue in the script than ends up in the movie, whole scenes cut out which basically involve exposition. That's the #1 movie on IMDB's top 250 list. So if it happened with Shawshank, you can be sure it happens with movies all the time. But yes, you do not need that line. Everything from the point where Maximus learns as a gladiator he may put himself in a position where he can get up close and personal with Commodus (about midway through the script), it's entirely clear what's on his mind, his goal and why: revenge! No need to spoil all that with dialogue.

@S.Kalyan Tagore: Wow, great catch with that scene by scene / sequence breakdown of the movie. I've included that link with the post re structure tomorrow and a thanks to you!

@Lise: Your comments are neither naive or irrelevant. Those scenes that "distracted" you? You sussed out the fact they are what are known as 'set-ups & payoffs': * Lucilla and the ancestor figurines * The rallying cry * The third one is more oblique: My guess is in order for there to be some actual tension in the Final Struggle between M & C, we have to believe that C actually has some fighting chops. How to establish that seeing as he rides in comfortably late after the opening battle is over? Drop in a scene like on 19 which shows his expertise with a sword. Good observations!

@DAF: I think your point about Act One feeling more like a political thriller than an action setup is spot on. It speaks to the very first point I made in my very first comment: 25 pages of no action [in the Action genre sense of the word] in Act One. And yet there's all sorts of machinations going on, power plays, probing and posturing all very much of a political nature. Call it "Three Days of the Eagle." Not condor, but eagle... the Roman eagle? You get my point... which is that I get your point. Which raises a question: Why is it that some action movies, like "Gladiator," can veer away from the Whammo theory [every 10 minutes in an Action movie, something has to go 'whammo']?

GLADIATOR STRUCTURE ANALYSIS 0-12min I made a structure analysis of the first 7 scenes of Gladiator. Feel free to improve on it. I intend to analyze the whole movie, doing several scenes a day. You can download it as a pdf at the following link: http://www.mediafire.com/?51w8m1v70emo175

@Scott: On the whammo theory. If you look at the amount of plotpoints in a story (especially an action story) there are quite a few occasions where you can put in a "whammo" moment which serves the story well. However, this should never be forced. In a "standard" action movie there are the following "standard" whammo points: The opening sequence (think matrix, iron man, law abiding citizen and tons of others) this is meant as an attention grabber, but if done well, it serves the story. So that is a 'whammo' at zero minutes. The following obvious point is at 15 minutes (inciting incident), then around 30 minutes (entering the new world). We are at three functional whammo points. At 60 mins (the stakes go up) is another one, at 75min another one (entering Villain's territory) at 90mins is another one (ultimate crisis). and at 105 is the final one (final showdown). These are already 7 points where action is needed. I guess you could add one more at 45min and maybe a few minor ones, but I don't think 12 are needed in a 120min movie. I'm very curious if anyone can find an example of a 120min movie where something 'blows up every 10mins'. So I think for a 120 min movie, 15 minutes is more practical as a rule of thumb for a whammo moment than 10 minutes (which would be true for a 90min movie). Gladiator is almost three hours. The whammo moments are more streched out, but nevertheless, they are certainly included in the important plotpoints. In my opinion the whammo moments should be integrated with the plotpoints, otherwise they feel 'pointless'. Just watch Matrix Reloaded and you'll get my point. That movie is filled with action sequences that do not serve the story, as opposed to Gladiator.

@Niko Have you seen any of Michael Bay's work? =)

@Mark: lol, good point! Name one Michael Bay movie and I'll run it through the whammo detector.

@Niko: The Whammo theory (or chart) is not just fabricated. I heard it first-hand from its supposed progenitor producer Larry Gordon. Here is a quote from Art Linson's book "A Pound of Flesh": "When you run out of theories and you can sense the writer’s eyes are getting glassy, you can always pull out the Whammo Chart. Supposedly Joel Silver got this from Larry Gordon, who got it from some Egyptian who worked at American International Pictures (AIP) many years ago. As the legend spreads, it is a scientifically tested theory which requires each action script to have a “Whammy” every ten pages. This would be a big-action set piece, something that would kick you in the groin and wake you up. If the script wavers a bit, spending a little too much time on nuance and character, it violates the theory. According to the natural laws of physics, without a bang the audience is buying popcorn by the twelfth page and looking for the exit sign if you stretch it to page twenty-five." I'm not saying it's a rule, but rather an expectation on the script development side of things in Hollywood. And for screenwriters working in all genres, it's a good piece of takeaway: We should have something significant happen [not necessarily action] every 10-15 pages. If we don't, then the script can drag.

@Niko: Good job with that scene by scene analysis. Please be sure and post a link to it when you're done in the "Gladiator" post today focusing on Structure [obviously you don't need to post it today, but if / when you finish it]. When I first broke into Hollywood, I analyzed dozens of movies that way, and still have some scene by scene breakdowns in my files. A great way to observe a story's skeletal structure.

@Scott, It's a great question. And definitely what intrigued me most about Gladiator when I first saw it. I went in expecting Raiders-like "whammo" but got something much more nuanced than the standard action film. Partly it has to do with how well-defined these characters are and thus how invested we get in them (and as we've discussed, both Maximus and Commodus are much more distinct and better characters after the transition from script to screen than before.) We tolerate the gaps in action because we what we learn in that down time about Maximus makes us care even more deeply for him. I'd also say that partly it has to do with the thriller-esque aspect as well-exploited by Ridley Scott. Suspense grips the audience as much as action if properly exploited. And as Hitchcock showed, suspense is not a matter of action or intellect, it's a matter of emotion. We see Commodus and Lucilla have their own agendas and we become even more invested in Maximus's fate. Will this "ordinary" man be able to save the Republic? Especially given his own aversion to the scheming of politics (a sentiment we can all relate to in these times!)? Why does this kind of slowing down and investment in character and/or suspense work for some action films and sometimes not? I'm not sure I've got anything better to add than the clicheed--hey, if you're as talented as Ridley Scott, you get to break all the rules and it will still work. But I do think that there's something to that. It's a tricky balance to pull off. If you slow down the action, you better be nailing the character and the emotion. And it seems like you gotta keep the plot and character motivations straightforward enough that people can actually follow. And after this reading, I'm more convinced than ever that in the case of Gladiator this has everything to do with the team of talent assembled than just the script per se. Another director (and team) could have made this script into a confusing, over plotted mess. But as we see, most of the changes from script to screen here were huge improvements. We see Maximus even more clearly on screen as a man gripped by grief, ready to avenge his family, and loyal to the "father" and the legacy for the state that father wished to leave behind. He's a soldier not a politician so Maximus cannot grip the reins from Commodus, but he can help the save the Republic by fighting to his death. And Commodus becomes a much worthier antagonist for him to fight on screen, just as the partial simplification of Lucilla makes her a more inspiring "heart." Whammo works. But so does emotion and character. And I think the action scripts that can balance all three are the ones that almost always linger in our hearts. My current thoughts anyway! You?

{a few|Some|Great|Interesting|Terific] {websites|articles|posts} you should {check|have a look|read}... [browsing Internet, i came across this post ...]...

I enjoyed reading the script. The structure was too linear chronologically for me. We get to see how he lost everything and went out to seek revenge – worse, he was served a chance for revenge on a character-fitted-in-story plate. The set-up was long and it hinted at predicted battle between Protag and Nemesis. We, as an audience, know where the story is headed and we watch it simply to know how it will happen. No real twists – Lucilla spilling the beans throws everyone, characters and the audience, off guard but then again the plan doesn’t change. I would have liked to see “the attack” before “the squealing”: Attack on Proximo’s compound at night. Commodus watches with Lucius under his arm, and under the watchful, tearful eyes of Lucilla who is revealed to have ratted the plan out as she’s presented with the head of the messenger she had sent to Maximus’s Regiment. He again It’s not that obvious why she would tell the whole plan to Commodus. Couldn’t she have spared the messenger and found a way to steal her son away from her brother? I would have liked to read an exposition that filled my head with questions, mysteries tucked here and there along the path until the final battle. Something like this, for example: We start with the scene where Maximus is taken captive and then sold as a slave. Here, he would have nightmares of his family’s slaughter and his farms destruction. Questions: who is this man? What happened to him? Did he kill those people and he’s now tortured by it (alla THE LAST SAMURAI) or were they his family?  Who killed them? Why? What would become of him? He clearly is a major character in this movie, so, what will he do to get out of his current situation? Rome greets the new Emperor as they morn the last one. The new Emperor vows to stay home, unlike his father, to love his people and entertain himself by reopening the Colosseum. Maximus eventually starts fighting to save Juba. He continues fighting because he wants to fill the emptiness in his life. He hears of the reopening of the Colosseum and suggest to Proximo to go and fight there. (He moves the story, not the other way round.) Proximo may be eager to return “home” and specially since there’s a lot of gold involved, or for more conflict he might have some old “history” there that he wants to stay away from (here subplots may change). No matter what Proximo decides at first, he’ll get convinced by the gold and they end up going to Rome. Here the story may continue as is and new mysterious questions arise as old ones unfold (Who is Maximus? How come he defies the Emperor? How does he know Lucilla? What type of relationship ties them together? Why does the emperor want to kill him?...) All these questions arise because Act I didn’t expose them. Some may not agree here, but I don’t like long setups that make the story somewhat predictable. I like mystery. We don’t need to know everything from the start; that’s how it happens in life. People’s choices don’t make sense to us because we don’t know their motives, but then once we do know them, we support or hinder them based on our convictions. However, if there is less exposition at the start, the characters still need to evolve in a way the writer wants us to connect with them from the start i.e. if he wants us to know who’s the P and who’s the N or, more mystery, let us hate the P (for, let’s say, killing for no reason) until we find his real motives and understand his cause. Here is another issue in the script which may not seem obvious, but I think as writers we should explore every possible solution for a problem and make sure that there is absolutely no other solution then the one we provide; not a single doubt mingles in the air leaving the audience wondering: but what happened to X? or why didn’t Y already know that?... In the script, this happens with the assassination attempt of Maximus. How come the Emperor never knew that his assassins were dead and that Maximus might be alive? Unless (continuing my version of the story above): The emperor demands to see his assassins when Maximus reveals himself in the Colosseum and finds out that they never came back. He’s vexed that he wasn’t informed of this. The whole set-up in the script could be used as flashbacks and dialogue lines in a faster paced, more action filled first act.