"Movies that start with a ‘flash-forward’ scene. (As in The Hangover, Seven Pounds…) How do you feel about those?" Pet peeve of mine. I hate 'em. Call them the JJ Abrams opening. I never knock a script for doing it, though. In general, doing this gives the script a very STRONG opening. But I find they cost the script tension, especially later. The problem is they all tend to be the same. It's usually the Act Two Climax - minus the climax. Just enough to be really exciting. And right when we're about to see what happens -- CUT (I'm not knocking building tension and the CUT away to something else. That is actually a great way to create tension). My problem stems from the fact we have to see this opening twice. As we are watching the movie, TV show, we can kinda guess what the climax (conclusion of that scene) is going to be. And then we have to sit through this scene that we've already seen before -- watch it play out... it feels like a poor substitute for a fresh scene we haven't seen before. Openings like these generally rob the tension from the end of the screenplay -- which I have to say, is probably the WORST place to steal from. I do like scripts that figure out a way to skip what we have already seen, without it feeling like it was skipped BECAUSE we had already seen it. I think this device is well used in THE HANGOVER (even though it's exactly what I'm complaining about lol). What works is it's short sweet, nails the joke -- I lost the groom. Sets up the stakes for the whole movie. In general, particularly for Action, I think going the RAIDERS route is a stronger choice -- Hero starts at the second act climax of a DIFFERENT story, rather than the one we're about to watch. <3 these twitter reader sessions.

> In general, particularly for Action, I think going the RAIDERS route is a stronger choice — Hero starts at the second act climax of a DIFFERENT story, rather than the one we’re about to watch. Brilliant insight, James. Bonus: rather than tell me about the protagonist, you're showing me exactly who s/he is in action from the top of page 1. I'm going to have fun thinking through how that might apply with other genres, too.

Too many new screenwriters think "status quo" means they have to show the main character in normal, boring everyday life. This couldn't be more off. (Ironically, a lot of those "flash forward" type openings do it too. Big flashy exciting opening SMASH CUT TO: ordinary, boring life). For action heroes, their status quo tends to be a little more elevated. There's the obvious ones: Bond, Indiana Jones, any Schwarzenegger movie -- but also look at John McClane in the first Die Hard... It may not open on massive action (or action at all), but it certainly opens on the dilemma of a story we haven't seen at its height -- The hero is flying to reunite with his estranged wife. There's a story there. Presumably, they had a normal, happily married life (Status Quo), she was offered a job (Inciting Incident), in L.A., for higher pay (Complications) which came to a boiling point when John refused to leave NY (Culmination). So she left -- And that's where we pick up at the beginning of DIE HARD. All that is missing from that story is a conclusion. And the first step toward that conclusion is that John got on a plane to fly to LA. It works in all genres. KRAMER VS. KRAMER starts with the wife walking out, leaving the father stranded with a kid. TOOTSIE starts with an actor unable to get acting gigs. Note: I'm not saying all films have to do this. I love a good slow burn too. My personal taste is that you can have a big, tense opening without "cheating." But in some cases, it's unavoidable -- like THE HANGOVER. I'm not sure there is a stronger possible opening than what they chose to do. And that's really what it boils down to -- what is the strongest opening for your story? (which may not be the most action-packed, again DIE HARD is a great example of this).

REM / AWAKE made me cry. That end scene. Three times actually. I cried the first time I read it. The first time I saw the pilot. And then once again when I re-read the script after the show had been cancelled. That's some power there. Craftsmanship too. I know the line that sets me off. And it's a callback/payoff of something earlier in the script. Ironically, books make me cry more often than screenplays. I think that has something to do with screenwriters being told that all screenwriting is genre writing -- and then not realizing that Drama is a genre that's function is to make someone cry (like Comedy is a genre that's function is to make someone laugh). No one ever seems to argue the point about Comedy. But the point about Drama is always met with apprehension and "Nuh uhs." Probably why there's way more Comedies than Dramas. Most screenwriters simply don't know how to write one. I know, I don't. Or at least it's not an endless well I can go back to, like I can with Comedy or Action.

> ...Drama is a genre that’s function is to make someone cry ...Probably why there’s way more Comedies than Dramas. Most screenwriters simply don’t know how to write one. I know, I don’t. Or at least it’s not an endless well I can go back to, like I can with Comedy or Action. And yet, "Action" is a fairly new genre in the world of western story-telling; sure there are action segments in the Illiad and the Odyssey, just as there are comic elements, too, but they both serve a stronger mandate of drama and tragedy. In contrast, drama and, more specifically to your purposes, have such strong and documented histories as modes of storytelling and performance. It sounds like your plate is already full with Comedy and Action, but if you want to get a better handle on tragedy (and on making people cry), go back to the Greek tragedies (the originals, or as they were revisited by writers like Jean Anouilh, and look at Shakespeare's tragedies as well. They have the keys to making audiences cry (right down to the structural considerations).

Well, I was talking more specifically about the modern day consensus that movies are a "genre medium." Genre writing is the ability to illicit a specific emotion/reaction from the audience. Comedy is laughter. Horror is scream/fear. Drama is tears. Movies can have components of many genres, but there's usually one that is powering the film. It's usually what the culmination of the film is. (and most major scenes will also turn on it. In sitcoms they call it a button, but all genres have their own version of the button. This is really clear in Horror, as well. It's a lot easier to see/feel in the genres that generate a visceral reaction). Kyle Killien has a great sense of humor, but he really writes Drama. And writes it well.