I just don't get it. I understand someone might whip out their cellphone and start recording an accident or a meteor or a creature that find in a cave.. but the moment something happens - like the creature jumps up and growls - that's the moment that the camera needs to go bye bye and you need to haul ass. But, this is usually when I check out of the story.. because recording the event is more important than staying alive.

That's a really good point, Wreckd. There has to be a plausibility to the origination of the found footage or else the story doesn't work. Something the writer has to take into consideration when creating the story world.

Hi Scott, This surge of found footage and thriller spec script sells has me both ecstatic and horrified. You see, I’m just finishing the second draft of spec script that is both thriller and found footage (a break from the horror norm), so the fact that both these genres are both hot at the same time is obviously exciting for me. Increadibly exciting. But – and there’s always a but – I am only on my second draft, and it disheartens me to think that by the time I’ve finished, the window of opportunity to tap into both these hot areas at the same time may have closed. So then, realistically, how long do you think I’ve got before the market is over saturated with found footage films rendering my script yesterday’s news?

Sean, I don't think there are any hard 'outs' on these trends. If the story you're writing is similar but different with a unique hook, well-written, castable, and a doable budget, it will have a chance no matter how saturated the market is. I'm actually doing a live Skype Q&A with John Swetnam (Evidence, Category Six) in a few weeks, and I'll ask him your question to get his thoughts.

I totally agree with you, and I think the writer has a responsibility to come up with a reasonably explanation of why the characters are filming in the first place (ie, ghost hunters, documentary filmmakers, storm chasers), but I also think that the audience is willingly suspending their disbelief. With found footage being a "genre" now and not just a mysterious marketing ploy, audiences know what they're getting into. By going to see the movie, they're voluntarily submitting to the preposterous notion that someone in a life threatening situation would hang on to their camera. It doesn't absolve the writer of responsibility, but I think the audience participation in the fantasy is what makes found footage work. Amy

Ok, so here's my question -- I'm a big fan of found footage movies (done right). But they are consistently thriller/horror movies. Is there a way to do a comedy found footage? A drama? Or does format beget genre?

There you go, Amy. That is precisely the type of brainstorming and thinking I've been trying to promote with the Movie Story Type series. Take one of those types, then play around with it. What you are suggesting is a case of 'genre-bending,' where you take a story conceit -- found footage -- then instead of a thriller or horror genre, try it as a comedy. That's a great idea and slots right into the 'similar but different' mindset.

These aren't going anywhere. The studios have found a way to make a movie for under 5 with the upside being the same or similar to their 100 mil or more behemoths. Huge upside. Almost no risk. Not going anywhere.

@Scott - That would great. Would love to hear John's thoughts on the question.

@Wreckd -- I wouldn't be disheartened. The window really was already closing on the found footage genre. What gave it new life was that there was literally ZERO competition for Paranormal Activity 3 this October. In a month usually know for scary movies Paranormal Activity 3 was the only business in town. What revives trends is often something as trivial as no competition. Found Footage is a fairly safe genre as well because it incorporates newer (cheaper) technologies in a way that is cheap and easy to shoot on a short schedule. Paranormal Activity 3 was pretty much a guaranteed moneymaker @ a five million dollar price tag and an opening weekend in October. No competition just made ti a phenomenon. @Scott -- The lack of plausibility is actually what turned me off from Apollo 18. In the 60s and 70s, they didn't use FILM cameras like we use iPhones. They had to load film and could only run ~12 minutes of footage at a time. The "documentary" filmic techniques need to ape the time, otherwise the documentary illusion is broken. Multiple angles and cutting in found footage really bother me, as most only establish a single camera. As does the non-existent cameraman -- ie someone holding the camera with the entire cast inframe or from an angle that is impossible -- like the driver being the guy filming 3 guys in the back seat of a car, but never facing forward. Like any genre -- beware of the cliche. Use what works, but give the audience something new that only that genre can deliver.