First impressions. Regarding this particular draft, it really feels just slapped together. I wanted to stop reading after 20 pages. There's no urgency. Scenes go on forever with unfunny dialogue. There's no refinement at all. This draft is dated “Approximately 8/12/09.” The film was released on April 28, 2011. When was this movie shot? It must have been in 2010. Plus, only Annie Mumolo's name is on the cover. Was this before Kristen Wiig worked on it? Hmmm... that note on page 120 says “we”... This is according to Billy Mernit, story analyst at Universal, from his site Living The Romantic Comedy: “I spent over three years working on Bridesmaids, giving notes on some eleven drafts of the project.” and this: “About 3-plus years of development from the studio's end (Wiig has said in interviews that she was on it for four and a half). The basic premise, broad strokes story and protagonist were there from the get, but the execution - i.e. the story line specifics, sequences and scenes within that basic structure (let alone dialogue and specific gags) did change radically throughout the process. Those 11 drafts I mentioned? Not a "simple polish" to the last - since after all, some dialogue and gags came out of improvs on the set. It's hard to assess with certainty how much of what the studio had to say was heard or taken in by Apatow, who worked with the writers throughout, and is infamous for his avoidance of studio notes. But let's say that there's evidence on page and screen that our input wasn't entirely ignored.” 3 years. 11 drafts. I doubt that this draft had gone through years of development and multiple changes. I suspect the date on the cover page is incorrect. It reads like a very early draft. However, with all that said, it does have the seeds from which the story can grow. We discussed this a few months ago about the importance of the concept and even in this early draft you can see why this idea and characters would inspire people to get behind it. It has that “I can see a movie” feel to it.

it is clearly an early draft - it even has that note in it about how the end scenes had only just been written, or whatever... What I thought was interesting is how this draft explores the characters and sets the tone of the eventual movie, without worrying too much about structure. It reminds me of the sort of "proof of concept" draft I sometimes write to get characters and some basic situations on the page and see whether there's really a story there. In fact, this kind of draft is maybe more valuable to the writer than a polished draft, simple because we can see what decisions were then made. There's stuff that was removed, and probably rightly - the Vegas stuff is funny in places, but the fact that they never get to Vegas in the finished film actually strengthens Annie's journey as a character by propelling her to her lowest point. And it provides a twist by setting us up for the Vegas-comedy, then delivering something funnier and more unexpected. There's stuff that hasn't arrived yet - Annie's failed business is a significant element that's not in this draft, but we can see how the idea (presumably) grew out of the moonpies in this version of the story. So what are we learning? Start with the comedy, then add the structure? Explore the characters before you worry about plot?

I may be just repeating what Teddy and Debbie have already said. And there are some SPOILERS (in regards to the finished film) It read really quick to me. And I'm not the fastest reader. Although, about 110 pages in, I started getting the feeling that I was ready for it to wrap up. It's interesting because I can see how many of the ideas started out.. and from the movie, I can see how they were developed and for the most part much improved. I think one of the most interesting parts dealing with script to screen is the elimination of the Vegas trip. When my wife saw the movie, she thought that a majority of the movie was going to be centered around the bachlorette party. I was surprised too, but thought it was an interesting choice, given that every wedding movie has that. But, it was interesting to see that they original had a vegas trip in the script. Of course, it could also have been eliminated for cost. However, the vegas trip did contain one of the few moments in which I laughed out loud. But, I think it was a defense mechanism laugh for how disgusting it was. I think the best thing they changed was adding more to Annie's story.. here it's almost as if she just has no self confidence, no self-esteem. But, I don't know why.. other than the age old 'life didn't turn out the way I expected'. But, in the movie they gave us the backstory of the failed business.. and that makes her inner struggles more understandable as Debbie said above.

I also felt the script was very basic, but as Debbie said, that's very helpful. As a beginning writer, I had a tendency to simply get a few 'images' and dive into writing, but lately I've found that an outline process works extremely well. I start with a logline, then a one pager, then a 5-pager, then bust into writing scenes, eventually filling out a draft. This feels like that draft, and while a lot of the scenes are different, I find that it has character DESIRES pretty clear. For me, that's my starting point, and it's nice to see here that they kind of slapped down the characters and their desires (ANNIE to find a relationship, LILLIAN to have a good party and respect her friends, HELEN to be admired, etc) and then kind of played with them in a variety of situations. Now, it's clearly been through some great revisions on every level, from the structure to the dialogue, and the final movie is much superior. I learned a lot reading this, though.

[...] Into the Story is doing a script analysis series this week on a draft of Bridesmaids. The script is the most popular post on my site, so I’m guessing many of you would be [...]

I liked this theme : Jalousy in friendship relations.

So I read the script a couple months back before I saw the movie. I was of fan of the script, even though it was pretty basic. I love the changes they made. If anything the simplicity of this draft definitely laid the groundwork. There was a couple funny moments that didn't make it to the screen, but the funny moments in the film were amazing. Notable changes that i liked... Not making it to vegas. Annie's failed business. Megan's character, which was hardly in this draft. This was a great example of the early stages of a script before it all comes together in the end. A solid read.

I am in meetings all afternoon. Will be back this evening with responses and thoughts about the script. In the meantime, keep noting the differences between script and movie (what about the change from Annie's roommate Steve to Gil and his sister Brynn).

I knew Steve didn't make it into the movie.. I completely forgot about Gil and Brynn. I now recall them. Rhodes seemed really desperate for Annie in this draft. Right from the get-go. I liked that he was a little more subtle in the movie.. I also liked that they actually started a relationship even if it was sort of just a one night stand. I also liked the added fact that she got her jewelry store job because the boss owed her mom and not just her regular sucky job. The lunch where they get sick was defnitely better than the uppity tea room place in the draft. Even if it seemed more for a gag.. although it was showing that Annie couldn't compete with Helen in bridal planning.

I wonder if Gil and Brynn were British in any draft, or whether that came about because of the casting? Likewise Rhodes being Irish. It used to be that British characters were villainous. Now we're funny. Is that progress? :)

I emailed Billy Mernit to see if he would provide more insight as to this particular draft we read. When I read the draft, initially I figured it was the famous 6-day first draft (as mentioned in the podcast) -- it certainly reads like a first or very early draft -- but then, like you, I noted the use of "we" in the note on P. 120 which gave me pause. The quote from Billy in terms of the time-frame makes me wonder even more. The movie was released in May, 2011. 3+ years of development would push its origination date back to 2008, maybe even 2007. The date on the script we read is 8/12/09. So basically that doesn't compute. I'll speak more to your final point in my overall comment later, but that is precisely one of the critical points to 'get' from reading this draft: Even as random as it feels, lacking a strong narrative drive, you can "see a movie" in it.

After rooting for it so hard, I ended up mildly disappointed by this movie. At the time, I felt that it worked mainly because the actors did such a great job and the tone was so fresh, but that the story construction was sloppy and unsatisfying. And it made total sense to me when I read about the circumstances of the first draft and the development process. I think that in some ways, the script is even funnier than the movie, and that there is some raw wit that got polished out in favor of Judd Apatow-style poop set pieces. But obviously, it needed a lot of work before it could become a blockbuster comedy. I'm happy for the film's success, but I guess I just wish that if it was destined to serve as the big dramatic revelation that female writers and actresses can indeed be funny and crowd-pleasing, that the fundamental structure and character arcs could have been a little stronger and more focused. And I suspect that a little more prep work would have resulted in a better final product than all those later notes and drafts could possibly produce.

The movie is far and away better and this goes to show how far the story came during development to make the movie the success that it is. This draft did have some funny gags and the vegas stuff was the best part of this draft. The core themes of jealousy and friendships are there but the movie just executes them way better than the script. I wanted to ask, would you all, if you were a reader for agency, production company etc. passed on this current draft of the script or given it a good grade and sent it through?

Debbie, you are taking precisely the right attitude as far as I'm concerned with how to get some solid writing takeaway from reading this script. There is a thing in the business known as a "vomit draft," where the writer just blasts it out with little regard to finesse, using the draft to explore character, tone, get a feel for dialogue, play around with some set pieces, see how the structure evolves, and in general just get their feet under them. This draft feels a bit more polished than most vomit drafts I've read -- or written --but still pretty close to a first pass. In that respect, you'd have to look at this as a success. I'll have more on that below. While I am a huge advocate for wrangling the story in prep, some writers much prefer stepping out into the void and seeing what emerges from page-writing. With "Bridesmaids," we are looking at writers who have a long history of sketch writing, so they are used to knocking out pages fast and in the moment, so I'm imagining a 'vomit draft' (or something close to it, whatever you would call a script written in 6 days) felt quite comfortable to them. So one piece of takeaway: The 'vomit draft.' Sometimes you may just need to sequester yourself for 4, 7, 10 days and blast out a draft. BTW Michael Arndt wrote the first draft of "Little Miss Sunshine" in 4 days. In fact, I'll reprise his first person account of that for tomorrow's Screenwriting 101 post. The other major takeaway is to look at this draft, then compare to the movie and ask yourself about each significant change: Why? Because that provides a window into the Hollywood script development process. As a broad generalization, I would say that Wiig & Mumolo gave the story its concept, most of the primary and secondary characters, most of the tone, many of the set pieces, most of the subplots, and a clear sense of what the humor would be in the movie. Apatow and the studio (including Billy Mernit's input) helped to refine the story and -- big influence -- shaped the structure. Now obviously I wasn't in those meetings, so I'm just speculating. But this is, as I understand it, the first feature length screenplay Wiig & Mumolo have written. They are, as noted, sketch writers. Two different things. You can see the sketch instincts in the draft we read. Apatow is brilliant at tone, characters, humor, but also strong on structure. Remember he was a producer on my favorite 1/2-hour TV comedy "The Larry Sanders Show" which episodes were generally pretty plot driven along with the feature films he has written and directed. So I think it's safe to say he helped influence the movie's story structure. We can delve into those comparisons -- the script's structure and the movie's -- tomorrow. Takeaway: A feature length film rarely works as a series of stand alone scenes that feel like sketches, there has to be an engine driving the narrative. The draft of "Bridesmaids" we read does have the broad perimeters of the story's structure in place. It also feels -- as Teddy suggested -- episodic. The movie was much more effective in that regard.

Neil, your central point can not be emphasized enough, and one of the strengths of the draft we read: I 'got' each of the primary characters really well. We will talk much more about this when we discuss characters on Wednesday, but the script kept hammering home in scene after scene after scene, not only Annie's conscious goal (to be in a loving relationship with a guy), it also made us really sympathize with her character, frankly to the point where she was pretty much pathetic [that's one of the reasons why I suspect they changed her back story in the movie so that she had once been a successful owner of a bakery, screwed by her ex, that at least elevated her from total putz status]. But not to lose your point, there is a clarity of vision about most of the primary characters in this draft (although Dana becomes Rita, and Steve becomes Gil, along with a few other secondary character changes). And that type of focus can help to steer a writer through even the most arduous development processes.

malefice, as the saying goes, "You can't have drama without conflict." There is a huge amount of tension in the script simply due to Annie's ongoing difficulties circumnavigating her shitty life, but the story requires a character to focus the conflict: And that's Helen, who is in effect the script's Nemesis. More on this Wednesday, but clearly Helen is a projection of Annie's 'shadow,' that image of herself as successful, beautiful, adored by men [visualized in her fantasy on P. 43-45 ending with her in the arms of Christian Bale]. So yes, jealousy.

Peter, so here are some of the changes we have aggregated thus far: * The movie loses the Vegas trip * The movie adds the back story of Annie's failed bakery business * Megan's character gets played up a lot in the movie [my guess is the way Apatow movies go, there was a ton of improvisation on the set and Melissa McCarthy just knocked her part out of the park] * Dana changed into Rita * Roommate Steve changed to Gil and his weird sister Brynn * The food poisoning scene added to the movie * In the script, Annie cedes the planning privileges to Helen; in the movie Lillian replaces Annie with Helen What other changes?

CP, my theory is they included the food poisoning scene to give the story that one memorable bit of gross bathroom humor most of these R-rated comedies seem to require. That is complete speculation. But in all honesty, the way the script is written -- I don't even remember any F-bombs -- while it may feel like it's supposed to be an R-rated story, it comes across (at least to me) as very PG-13. So food poisoning and more graphic sexual content / humor probably added to make it a true R-rated movie. Again my speculation.

Caitlin, I don't think "Bridesmaids" is a great movie in part because I felt it wandered some and even dragged. I checked on IMDB: The film is 125 minutes long! I think they could have trimmed 15 minutes and made it a tighter, funnier movie. But easy to say from the cheap seats. Like you, I'm happy it did well. It's an original film (in the sense it isn't a remake, sequel or a board game adaptation). It features a lot of women (shocking how so few female-centric movies Hollywood produces in a year). It defied conventional wisdom: "Women won't go to an R-rated movie featuring women." The performances were outstanding. And it was funny. Hopefully the next Wiig & Mumolo effort (if they write another screenplay together) will be even better.

Tommy, in all honesty, this is what I would have said to the writers if they had given me this draft for my take: "Great characters, strong concept, good sense of humor and tone, it feels like a movie to me. It needs work. It's very episodic and needs a much tighter narrative focus." And they would have doubtless barged out of my office, gotten Apatow on speed dial, and the rest is history. Seriously there are possibly people in Hollywood who would have read this draft and not thought it had what it took to be a movie, however my guess is they would be in the minority. As messy as this draft is, there is a lot of quality in it. And the bottom line for me in a comedy is three things: Concept, characters, humor. This script had all three in spades.

Some general comments to pull together some thoughts I've touched on in replies above. This is a strong first draft. It's a bit of a mess from a narrative standpoint. It's really long (138 pages without whatever transition they noted, but didn't write on P. 12). It feels sketch heavy to the point of coming off as episodic. But: * I like the Protagonist: Who can't sympathize with a decent, earnest, self-deprecating, and funny young woman trying to find love, suddenly immersed in the mystifying, unsettling world of a wedding? * I like the concept: See above. * I like the characters: Especially Annie, Lillian, Helen [as a Nemesis], Rhodes [as an Attractor], Ted [as an Attractor], and Megan. * I laughed. A lot. There are a ton of good lines of dialogue, good lines in scene description, funny visual bits of business. * I was emotionally invested in Annie's journey. At times, I felt she was over the top pathetic, but to me, I 'forgave' the writers as they were clearly heaping on the abuse to ensure we were on Annie's side. * There is a sense of three-act structure in place in the script [more on that tomorrow]. * I enjoyed the tone. Adult, witty, broad, but in a consistently fun way. One final comment: Why do you think they lost the Vegas sequence? First they saved 20 pages by dropping it. But don't you think it has to be the fact that "The Hangover" opened on June 5th, literally less than a month after the date of this draft? A bachelor party in Vegas? How could "Bridesmaids" do anything in comparison to "Hangover"? So my guess is someone [Apatow?] said, "Hey, this bit of business on P. 91, where Annie's on the airplane and sneaks up to first class to talk with Lillian and Helen, why don't we have her act out, and all of them get tossed before they get to Vegas? That way we lose the whole "Hangover" / Vegas issues, and make Annie look like a total loser which makes the situation between she and Lillian even worse..." More tomorrow.

Annie does drop the F-bomb when Helen gives Lillian the Sea World tickets. But, only twice.. or I'd say you're right about the PG-13 feel.

I like this series, Scott, thanks for starting it. Enjoyed a lot of this script and didn't think it was that far off the finished film, even though every single scene changed. The characters; a lot of the structure; most of the events; many of the jokes are there. The inspired work at least had been done. (That is to say, I reckon there are many jobbing screenwriters who could take this version and craft it into something like the tighter, more directed and concise film that we ended up with.) One quite minor change from the movie I'll pick up on. At the very start of this draft, Annie has just slept with Ted for the first time on their first date and she says it was her best first date in ages. In the film they come across as steady f-buddies -- we understand it to be pretty much an ordinary morning for Annie, albeit an especially humiliating one. Personally I prefer the movie version because it gives us a clear picture of normality before the inciting incident. In the scripted version, we can't be sure if sleeping with Ted is characteristic behaviour for Annie, so her character is not communicated as fast.

Rob, that's a good point and shows how even tiny changes can make a significant difference. If we look at Annie's character in terms of her metamorphosis, is it better to have her start off with Ted on a first date or an established pattern as f-buddies? Clearly the latter because that underscores her need to change. If it was a first date, then it would take her time to get into a rut. The way it is in the movie shows she's already in a rut. It makes all that dialogue between she and Lillian about Annie's bad habits with men basically unnecessary because we actually see it in action with her ongoing relationship with Ted. That's an example of a good script development note... and a good sign for you in terms of your own writer's instincts that you picked it up.

Scott, I'm tuning in a bit too late and it seems like the Bridesmaids script has been removed from the website. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind sending it to me on email? (anijarrett@hotmail.com) I would really appreciate it! ps. I love your blog, it's so informative!