This post is getting very jargony. I have some questions, specifically aimed at how you as readers apply your own personal knowledge base -- Keep in mind, I am playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here. I respect the answers that you all have given and am just dissecting this a little bit. From the comments, some of you seem to cite heavily certain screenwriting gurus. AP seems to be a huge Blake Snyder fan. Fun & Games, trailer moments, Legally Blonde being structurally perfect, etc. This stuff is straight out of his book Save The Cat. When I see this, I wonder how much of your judgement on people's scripts is not actually your own. How much of it is simply things you've read and are regurgitating? Here's a question for AP: Do you like MEMENTO? Blake Snyder hates it. Thinks it's a flawed film. Do you like BLANK CHECK? Or THROW MOMMA FROM THE TRAIN? These are films attributed to Blake Snyder. I am not passing judgement one way or the other. I just find it interesting when people start reciting screenwriting rules as Gospel. I am curious how much of your read of other people's scripts is your opinion and how much is Blake Snyder's? I think Snyder has a lot of good points. But I also think he never had a single idea for a movie that wasn't a Family Film. His chapter on genre, and admitted shallow understanding of genre, greatly reflects this. One last thing for AP and then you can go back on your way safe and sound. No more punishment, I promise -- Do you believe that the theme should be clearly stated in a line of dialogue in the first X amount of pages of a screenplay? Why or why not? If it is missing, do you fault a screenplay for it? BSR -- "Future/Sci-Fis are the worst. Terrible from amateurs – often questionable from pros" Care to back this up? Yeah, I am pretty much calling you out on a blanket statement that's not backed up even by an opinion. Sorry, lol. (I know you probably have your reasons, but it'd be nice to hear them expressed). I am really curious why the first instinct is to blame the genre? I'd be willing to bet that the exact same writer would give you an equal level of quality in any genre. Scritshadow harps on SciFi in this manner. It is kind of his go-to pet peeve. I do understand the mentality to blame the genre, but usually the bottom line is just poor writing. I, for one, find poorly written comedy more tedious to read than poorly written SciFi. At least SciFi I can get a sense of what they are trying to do, and in general, the writers will hit more genre marks than a poorly written comedy. (Cause let's face it -- can you even call an unfunny comedy a comedy?) I find a comedy that isn't funny incredibly infuriating to read. Do you really feel this way about SciFi? What are your reasons, specifically? Did you like Orci and Kurtzman's STAR TREK? Name some professional SciFi screenplays you thought weren't well executed. I am intrigued. (I actually like reading professional scripts that fail. I learn a lot from them. The most eye opening script I ever read was a 2006 Lawrence Kasdan script that made me realize great writers have poorly executed ideas too -- but it also made me realize there is a confidence in their voice that is undeniable. You believe the story is going somewhere even when it ends up that it doesn't). My point seems to be, I get the feeling that a lot of times these myths of bad writing and specific genre, things to avoid are perpetuated not on observation, but simple repetition. Enough people have said it -- so it MUST be true. I have to say, I have read far more really terrible comedies than SciFi specs. In fact, I tend to remember the SciFi specs over the others because there tends to be a certain level of originality. Bad comedy specs are incredibly forgettable -- I mean, 1/2 of Sarah Jessica Parker's RomComs are forgettable, right? And that's "professional" writing. Action can be as equally dormant. I am only putting this out there because there is a sentiment that I don't think is wholly accurate. And I also think many people would agree with me. They like chunky tomato sauce too! (Sorry, bad Malcolm Gladwell reference). Nate gets away a little more unscathed than the other two. Probably because his insights tend to mirror my own, so I have less questions to ask. It's also because his answers seem a little more fluid. He's not pegging down specific pages, or incidents, rather making larger generalizations of what works for him. The only constant I have seen that works is to drive conflict. And drive it hard. The only time page counts matter, at least for me as a reader, was when I was bored. The read would drag and I'd actually remember on what page something occurred because there would be huge gaps between nothing and something. The simple anomaly of something became an event. The truth of the matter is -- something needs to be twisting and turning on every page. Writhing in a direction. I'm very anti-cookie-cutter mentality, that's pretty much why I push this subject pretty hard, particularly when I start to see very jargony, non-specfic answers to legit questions many people may have. And I know the 3 of you are very insightful and most likely have your own thoughts and opinions on story -- it just felt like this part of the conversation was simply deflecting thought with things you already knew. Things other people had said. QUESTIONS FOR THE LOT OF Y'ALL: 1) On leaving Act One -- does it matter if you know what the protagonist's goal is specifically? Can you be satisfied with a character who is driven and has a clear goal that you don't know what it is? (I understand the instinct here is to point out that many writers have difficulty being specific enough in the first place to even give a simple obvious goal. However, that is not the question). 2) What is Luke Skywalker's goal once he's out of Act One? Is that goal simply a cascading series of events, chaining from one to the next? Or is there a larger goal at play that stretches the entire movie? Here's a special one just for Nate cause I felt I left him out -- You say, if there's a question raised in Act 1, Act 3 better answer it -- Luke sets out on a quest. He literally says, "I want to become a Jedi Knight like my father." Does it bother you at the end of the film that he has not become a Jedi Knight like his father, particularly when that seems to be a rather large contributing factor for his want to leave Tatooine? (it's actually one of the few goals Luke specifically states wanting to accomplish early in the film). 3) Does it bother you that we meet Luke Skywalker (protagonist) so late in the story? What notes would you have given, if any, to change this? Do you think a hero could be introduced so late in a film made today? 4) Scott asked: "What does a writer need to accomplish by the end of Act One?" I find it interesting that not one person answered with 'establish tone and/or genre.' Some talked about theme, and character, and plot/character goals -- but no one said that it is important to establish 'what kind of movie this is.' When I watch a film or read a script, the ones that jump out at me are the ones that declare -- I AM A THRILLER! I AM A COMEDY! When people talk about how important your first ten pages are -- and other claiming they can actually tell from page 1 if a script is good or not -- I honestly think this is what they are referring to more than anything. TONE. Do you that to be unimportant? If so, please explain. If it was an oversight, please explain its importance. Thanks! I think this is a monster comment. Wow. Sorry to torture you all. These are questions I have. But I also think the answers to would be illuminating for many trying to figuring out what those that are the gatekeepers are thinking.

Yeah, I'm right there with ya. I think in a way this was boiled down to over simplification in a way that is actually more damaging than helpful. So I wrote a giant comment, that no one will read, cause it's way too long lol. On a side note: THE FUGITIVE -- most would argue that the antagonist is also Tommy Lee Jones, because as you astutely point out -- the actual antagonist has very little screentime. This dilemma is a great example of the trap that is jargon. Does it matter how we define these characters? The Fugitive is a great thriller from start to end. The read is a page turner. The film is one of my favorites (to the point it is the DIE HARD of chase thrillers). Overlabeling things isn't always a useful tool. Simply having an antagonist isn't enough. Crafting scenes of conflict... that's the meat all drama.

I agree. Part of the problem is what context we're viewing the movies. As a reader going through the script the first time (or viewer watching the movie), those labels shift - so when analyzing the story, it really needs to be done from a holistic perspective and be all-inclusive, determining what function they ultimately play - not necessarily what they appear to play. In that regard, depending on whatever story theory one is following Gerard's function in The Fugitive will shift. In Dramatica speak, he's a contagonist - a function that hinders the protagonist, but not is diametrically opposed to his quest for finding the truth. As Gerard says himself, "I don't care". In Truby-speak, Gerard is more of an opponent-ally: someone who appears to be against the protagonist, but actually ends up helping. This is due in part because, being a Marshall, Gerard is ultimately concerned with justice and Kimble slowly sways his opinion. The important thing early is Kimble has obstacles, and lots of them.

There are a lot of people who believe that if you have to state your theme in a screenplay, you must not be a very good writer. I don't agree one way or the other with that notion, but have always seen it as a crutch - especially if it's done early in a script. It's much better to resort to such a thing at the climax, if need be, where it will resonate with the audience when they leave the theaters... not when they're checking their watches and saying to themselves "oh good, we're getting close to the B-Story so I can go to the bathroom!". Ok, that last point was tongue-in-cheek, but seriously, we sometimes over-analyze these things from a writing perspective when in fact they don't necessarily mean anything to an audience who willfully pay to be manipulated. Such is the case with "grab the reader in your first ten pages". That's all about "reader" and decision-makers. By the time something rolls out into a theater, people area already going to be making their decisions on wanting to see it based on the trailer which is going to give them all of those points up front (genre, tone, protagonist, stakes, etc.). They're not going to walk out of the theater after the first ten minutes - but I can totally understand and appreciate that from a reader's perspective, particularly with a spec script.

Remember that it's hard to boil down screenplay structure into a 140-character tweet. Also, there are no complete hard and fast rules with script reading. It's not like we say, "Oh, act two came on page 27 and 25, so this is a pass." I would never do that; I look at scripts holistically. And yes, sometimes you don't know if someone is a friend or antagonist until late in the script. That's why I (and many other readers) read the entire script first without writing much of anything, and then read it a second time to write the synopsis and comments.

Yes, I have found Blake Snyder to be helpful - but I certainly don't think a script has to adhere to all of his ideas to be good. With books, articles, blogs, etc., I think the goal is just to think about things in a new way. Some people see act two as fun and games. Some people see it as a journey. Some people see it as complications. In a way it was just easy to use some of his terms in a short tweet. I didn't hate Memento, but I didn't love it either. I do think it's important to ask yourself if nonlinear structure is actually adding something to your script, since I've definitely read scripts that used it poorly. Yes, I think it's important that we know a protagonist's goal by the end of act one. Keep in mind that there's sometimes both a tangible goal, like "getting into the championships," and an emotional goal that the character may not even realize, like "growing up." Also, it's perfectly fine if your character's goal changes over the course of the movie, or if the character achieves the goal and then realizes s/he doesn't want it anymore. But if your character doesn't have a goal at all, where is the momentum? Why should we care? Why should we want to see what happens? I agree that establishing tone and genre is important. I guess it's less common for me to see scripts that fail to do these things. But you're right - the tone and genre should be consistent. I feel like there's an instinct for a lot of writers to say "wait! that's not fair!" when it comes to readers. Everybody relax. We aren't out to get you. We read the whole thing. We want to love it. We aren't going to PASS because you didn't state a theme on page 5. Lots of scripts approach classic beats or structure in a unique way. Ideally, your story is so interesting and your writing style is so effective that I'm not thinking about building blocks, I'm just entertained.

Yeah. Nothing was personal. I know I was putting you on the spot. Just poking and prodding a little to get to some less "standard" answers. Like I said, I had no judgement. I actually don't particularly like MEMENTO. For me, I find that if the story was played forward it isn't as interesting -- which only leaves us with the gimmick of how it was shot (which was awesome, but ultimately doesn't make me care about the characters or story). Hmm -- debating on continuing, cause I can see this going badly and taken in a manner not intended. You don't hate it, you don't love it either -- and then talk about other people using nonlinear structure in their scripts. Does your response mean you think Memento misused nonlinear structure? You answered a question without really answering it. It's interesting. There's nothing specific about that answer. I was curious what your likes and dislikes were. What motivates you (all 3 of you readers) have for picking and choosing? What your thoughts are? Maybe gleam who you are as a person and what turns you on in a script. And you did a great job of giving me absolutely no insight into that. lol. I think the vagueness is interesting. And now I wonder if you're even aware that you were doing so. But I'll stop there -- cause this is feeling like a really weird cross examination and definitely not what I intended. Probably the way I went about this already had you on the defensive. For that I apologize. I really wanted to know how much of yourself you bring to your coverage. I think I inadvertently got my answer.

Our personal preferences aren't always important. Just because I don't like seeing people bludgeoned to death doesn't mean I wouldn't recommend something like that to my bosses. Personally, I love: -witty dialogue -female characters! such a treat! (sigh) -scripts that make me say "wow, I've never thought of that before" or "wow, I've never seen something like this before" -scripts that manage to be both really mainstream and really clever -twists I didn't expect -scripts that subvert your expectations, like when a mentor becomes an antagonist However - it's not necessarily my job to look for those things. What motivates me to choose a script is: "Would the company be interested in buying this?" Thanks for the discussion...have to go back to reading now!

Thanks CP! I hope you checked out my 4-part interview this week because there's some interesting stuff there even if you're not a STAR WARS fan. Next week starts a 12-part series called 12-Step Screenwriting. That's basically a series of videos designed to turn completing a first draft into a 12-week process. It's screenwriting basics, one step at a time. Hopefully it's good general advice as well as motivation. I tried to keep the Snyder-esque jargon to a minimum, but you guys will be the judge of that. And after that.... some interviews that I hope you guys will find very cool.

James, I'm glad you got that off your chest. There are a lot of assumptions and logical fallacies in this post. Just to name one, you leap to the conclusion that Amanda's a Blake Snyder fan (because Blake's clearly the only guy who could have liked LEGALLY BLONDE), then make an even bolder assumption that if she DID like Snyder's opinions, she has to love everything he does, and hate everything he hates. In particular, THIS statement right here is way out of line: "I am curious how much of your read of other people’s scripts is your opinion and how much is Blake Snyder’s?" Why do we attack sci-fi? Because it's possibly the easiest genre to fuck up and it's one of the hardest genres to sell. I think part of the disconnect between your perspective and ours is that you guys are only seeing the tip of the tip of the iceberg that's out there. Or to put it another way, think of some of the worst sci-fi movies you've seen. Now meditate on the fact that somehow that was enough of a cut above the other specs that it defied the odds to get made! We see patterns of shitty writing that (if everyone is doing their jobs) never should even land on your radar. Even if you're talking about some of those blogs that review scripts in development you're not seeing the true worst-of-the-worst. For the record, I loved J.J. Abrams STAR TREK. I thought it might even be the best of the franchise. Original sci-fi falters for a lot of reasons: 1) the writer is making pale imitations of better films, most commonly The Matrix, Star Wars, Alien and Terminator. 2) related to that, sci-fi invites a lot of world-building. To be blunt, a lot of writers suck at this. Space opera is the worst. If I pick up a script and see spaceships, I moan. It takes incredible skill to establish the rules of an entire sci-fi universe and tell an entertaining story at the same time. Usually the culprit is that they're so busy with bells and whistles that they forget to make the characters interesting. I suspect all three of us could dive in to our coverage files and find 50 examples of pro sci-fi scripts that didn't work. I'd also wager that nobody here would have heard of them because they didn't get made. The vast majority of sci-fi that does get made is pre-branded.

For me, the most important factors come down to: 1) the writer MUST have a trust fund. 2) the writer MUST be a male. 3) the script MUST underestimate and insult the intelligence of anyone who sees the movie. 4) Women and minorities MUST be relegated to token roles. 5) the writer MUST not only be from Los Angeles, but have an 310 and 323 area code. 818 isn't gonna cut it. 6) the script MUST NOT have anything we haven't seen before in a film. If it's new, it's bad. What? You guys didn't get the memo?

Thanks, BSR and Amanda for following up as this has evolved into a most interesting conversation. We definitely have to schedule a live Tweet chat some time soon.