by Hayley McKenzie

Being commissioned/optioned is a fantastic endorsement of you as a writer and marks a huge step forward in the industry. What many writers come to realise is that it is the beginning of a very different process and one that requires just as much skill to navigate as breaking in did.

The development process in the film and television industry can feel like its own special kind of hell and the often interminable months and often years spent ‘in development’ can be utterly demoralising. That euphoria of having ‘made it’ begins to fade and gives way to despondency and a sense of hopelessness as your fantastic film/tv show looks further away from getting made than it did before you even typed ‘fade in’.

At this year’s London Screenwriters’ Festival I had the great pleasure of being on a panel with Jason Taylor (Bad Hat Harry Productions), Rob Sprackling (Gnomeo & Juliet) and Jed Mercurio (Line of Duty), discussing what happens AFTER your script’s been optioned. What was clear was how different writers approached this process depending upon what they wanted to get out of it.

For Jed, having significant creative control over his projects was of paramount importance and so collaborating with the right production company was essential for him. While Rob had ‘passion projects’ that he tries to protect through the development process, he was sometimes happy to take the pay cheque knowing that in doing so the chances of retaining creative control might diminish.

That euphoria of having ‘made it’ begins to fade

What everyone agreed was that having your work commissioned or optioned did not guarantee it being made but that at least it was now a possibility. Every development process is unique but here are some of the oft-encountered hurdles you might face and how you can overcome them:

Unpaid rewrites – As development budgets get smaller everyone is trying to get more for less and, unhappily, that includes getting writers to do more work for less money. How you respond to this depends upon how much you want to avoid upsetting the apple cart, how you feel about the changes you’re being asked to make, and whether you feel those asking for the changes (ie the producer) are themselves putting in work for no money.

While development can be poorly paid for writers (a £1 option agreement is not uncommon), it’s often even more poorly paid for producers who have to invest huge amounts of time trying to get your project off the ground without any guarantee of any success or financial return. If you think your producer is working hard for your project and you think the changes will make the project better, it’s probably worth the effort. An agent, if you have one, if often great at helping make this kind of judgement call. If you don’t have representation, ask around for advice from the writing community.

Script notes you don’t agree with – As a script editor my hope is always that all the notes I give to a writer are met with a knowing smile as it confirms problems they subconsciously knew were lurking in their script but they just hadn’t be able to identify, unpick or solve. However, the reality is that even brilliant script editors aren’t always right about every note and as a writer you’ll develop an ability to spot the notes that might change your script but aren’t necessarily making it better.

Then there are the notes that are good and will transform your script but sadly transform it into precisely the kind of project you absolutely don’t want it to be. There’s a great joke in ‘Only Fools and Horses’ in which Trigger tells Del Boy he’s been looking after his granddad’s broom, he’s “maintained it these 20 years. This old broom’s had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time”! Once you’ve been asked to change everything you love about your project, is it really the project you love any more?

This is the time to make a choice – do you take the money and write the script you’re being asked for (even if you hate it) or do you try to convince the note-giver to have faith in your vision of the project? If you try but fail to convince the note-giver then you may have to contemplate taking the project back from the producer, if that’s contractually possible. I’ve seen writers take each of these different routes and, as long as the decision is made not in haste but after serious consideration of the consequences, then it has always ended happily.

Every development process is unique.

Radio silence – This is something that annoys the heck out of everyone working in development and it’s my pet hate. For writers, who are often at the bottom of a very big chain, it can feel as if your producer (that same one that promised you the earth when convincing you to let them option your script for £1) has disappeared off the face of the earth.

It is perfectly reasonable for you to expect your producer to keep you up to date on progress but not all producers do this as often as they should. If you find yourself in this position, it doesn’t do any harm to give them a nudge. I’m not talking stalking here, just friendly, polite ‘what news?’ ‘is there anything you need me to do?’ kind of approaches.

Sometimes the radio silence is because they are just, temporarily, snowed under on something else that’s suddenly taken off. The great thing about option agreements is that they END and you can decide at the end of the option period whether you want to renew with that producer. Don’t be afraid to ask them what they’ve actually done to make your project happen in the time they’ve had it. If you’re unhappy with the answers then start looking elsewhere for someone who will be more passionate about your project and actively do more to get it made.

Being fired from your own project – This is not uncommon in films but is, thankfully, very rare in television. Whether or not you can be fired from your own project very much depends upon the kind of contract you’ve signed. While you (and your agent) will want to do everything you can to avoid this outcome it isn’t the end of the world if it happens. While it’s unheard of in authored television drama it is an all-too-frequent occurrence in both feature films and continuing drama series. If it happens to you, take heart from the fact that you’re not the first and won’t be the last to suffer this fate and it doesn’t mean that others in the industry will think any the worse of you in the future.

There are many elements within the development process, some of which require more input from you, like honing the script, and others which require your patience, like your producer raising the finance/convincing a tv network commissioner.

The key is balancing being positive and pro-active whilst waiting for things to happen without you. While everyone involved is (hopefully!) working hard to make your project a reality, there is no guarantee your project will move into production.

My advice is to keep yourself equally busy dreaming up the next brilliant project that is going to wow the industry. Before you know it you could be so in demand with projects shooting and in development that you’ll wonder why you ever doubted your ability to do this amazing job.

– Hayley McKenzie

Hayley McKenzie is a Development Consultant for film and television with a passion for great stories and great writers.

Hayley runs Script Angel which offers development services to producers and writers.

Photo Credits: Graphic Stock, Hayley McKenzie

Jamie Campbell

Jamie Campbell is an author, screenwriter, and television addict.

Jamie is proud to be an Editor for The Story Department.

Her latest series Project Integrate is out now.

jamiecampbell.com.au

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

If you liked this, check out more videos about screenwriting or filmmaking. And if you know of a great video on Screenwriting, let us know in the comments. Thanks!

Final Draft has it, Microsoft Word has it. Every single word processor has it.

It’s the “Find/Replace” function.

Okay, perhaps it’s more like a ‘pass’ rather than a ‘draft’. Still, you can have a notably slicker draft in a day.

Another disclaimer: it’s powerful but also slightly dangerous if you’re reckless – or inexperienced.

One keyboard click and your entire screenplay can be changed. So before we start, remember to make backups regularly. I make a copy – with a new file/version name – each time I change anything significant in the script.

To limit the extent of the changes, it is good to make the search case sensitive. So for instance, if you’re looking for text in scene headings, the result should return UPPERCASE text only.

If the Find/Replace operation hasn’t done what you want – or if it has changed MORE than you wanted – in most word processors you can use Ctr-Z/Apple-Z  to undo.

Easy to find – Easy to fix

This feature is equally useful to the novice who is preparing the draft to be read by an editor as it is to the experienced writer going towards Final Draft. Nobody is perfect; everyone overlooks certain issues that may distract from a smooth read.

What follows is a random selection of script issues that can be fixed using this option.  When you look carefully at some of the stylistic weaknesses in your script, you’ll almost certainly find a dozen more examples that apply to your specific screenplay.

If you own a copy of our Screenplay Checklist(*), you will find that some of the issues listed there can be quickly found and fixed using Find/Replace.

For any explanation on WHY to make the recommended changes, please consult the Checklist. This article is not about that.

Scene Headings – Slug Lines

Make sure these are absolutely immaculate.

There is usually only one simple, correct format for each slug. Use it.

– If you have used “INT, MAIL ROOM, DAY” (same for ‘EXT’):

Find: “INT, ”
Replace with: “INT. “

Then:

Find: “, DAY”
Replace with: ” – DAY”

– If you have used DAWN, MORNING, AFTERNOON, DUSK, EVENING etc., you’ll almost certainly need to replace this with DAY or NIGHT only.

Find: “- MORNING”
Replace with: “- DAY”

Etcetera.

The hyphen is included in the search string to avoid changing anything outside the slug lines.

The result: INT. MAIL ROOM – DAY

Here’s an advantage for users of Final Draft: in the ‘More’ options under the Search function, you can specify individual or groups of elements only. In the above example, you will only tick ‘Scene Heading’.

Punctuation

– Remove excessive dots and reduce to triple dots:

Find: “….”
Replace with: “…”

Repeat this action until no more instances are found.

– Excessive white space / too many paragraph marks.

Some screenwriting packages don’t check the amount of line breaks and you may end up with too much white space between scenes or paragraphs. This is easily resolved. The maximum number of line breaks is THREE. So wherever you have four or more, you need to reduce it to three – at the most.

Find: “^p^p^p^p”
Replace with: “^p^p^p”

Repeat this action until no more instances are found.

– Correct use of interruptions and pauses.

Find: “–” (double dash)

Check if each instance is only used for INTERRUPTED sentences that are NOT continued afterwards. Wherever they are continued, you need to use “…”. (Check David Trottier for details)

[adrotate group=”1″ banner=”1″]

– Multiple exclamation marks

Usually there is no reason to differentiate between intensity of shouting.

In a script, loud is loud and too much is messy.

So leave it up to director and cast and for now replace “!!” with “!” until no more instances can be found.

Dialogue

Numbers

You can use the find/replace function to correct numbers in dialogue, where you need to spell them out: “seven hundred and three” in stead of “703”, “twenty to six” in stead of “17.40h” etc.

So wherever you have used numbers in dialogue, replace them with the complete words.

Abbreviations

The same goes for abbreviations: in dialogue, replace “km” with “kilometer” etc.

Repetitions

If you find that a character uses the same lame word(s) or sentence all the time, do a search and fix it.

Style

You can really jazz up your style by removing bland words and replace them with more colourful alternatives.

Be specific:

Find: “goes”, “makes” etc.
Replace with: [more specific verbs]

Next,

Find: “begins to”, “starts to” etc.

Then remove each instance and replace it with the more specific, active verb.

Manipulation of time:

If you’re using words like “slowly”, “cautiously”, “hesitantly” a lot, be aware of the following:

– it may seem as if this movie moves slowly.
– the movie is longer than the page count suggests.

The same goes for: “quickly”.  If you’re using this or similar words often,

– action may seem to move more quickly than it really does.
– the movie may become longer than the page count suggests.

Neither may be a big issue, but it’s good to be aware of it.

Manipulation of feelings:

Quite a lot of beginners’ scripts frequently use phrases such as “he smiles at her”, “she looks away, sad“.

This is easy to diagnose, not so easy to fix.

Forcing the actors into facial expressions is the worst way of conveying emotions.  The emotions need to be felt by the audience, whether or not the actors express them. Emotions are the result of actions that precede a scene or situation. They should not be forced upon an audience/the reader by describing a character’s body language.

Perform a search on these words to see how you’re scoring.

There may be some more work to be done before you send out that script…

Time passing:

You cannot describe the passing of time without giving us specific actions – or a cut/dissolve to the next shot/scene.

– for a while
– he keeps walking back until she finally gives in
– moments pass in silence

All the above suggest that more time passes on the screen than is suggested by the page count in the script.

Keep the 1p./min. rule in mind. More importantly: make sure that what happens on the screen holds our attention.

We see – We hear

Some people don’t mind; others hate it. If you can rephrase without using “we”, do it.

Typos / Grammar / Spelling

There really is no excuse for leaving typos in the script.  Spell checkers are free and they are everywhere.

Here’s the first one to look for:

Find: “its”

Then check for each instance if you don’t mean “it is”. If you do,

Replace with: “it’s”

Next,

Find: “it’s”

Check if you don’t mean the possessive pronoun.  If you do,

Replace with “its”.

Do it all again.

Finally, read the first five pages of your screenplay with the utmost scrutiny and make notes about the nature of each error you find. Then, for each error, use the FIND option to check the rest of your script against the same issue.

You see, there virtually are no limits to the use of this function. If you use it cleverly, it will save you heaps of time.

Set aside half a day or a day to play around with the Find/Replace function. Make backup copies every 5 mins.

I have seen examples where screenplays looked infinitely more professional after little more than a few hours.

Now, go forth and unleash the power of F/R on your script!

(*)If you don’t yet own a copy of the Screenplay Checklist, you can still request the Beta version by emailing us with “ScreenplayChecklist” in the subject.

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

Writer/Producer Meg Shields reflects on the development of her script which recently won the Bill Warnock Feature Writers Awards in WA.  Will this mean a future in which she can buy her kids birthday cakes without the guilt of not baking them?

With Australian films struggling at the box office and many great writers out of work, I have moments when I seriously contemplate whether my quest to tell stories in the visual medium is a pipe dream. The maternal guilt of juggling kids with making films, and spending time with my words rather than baking cakes and volunteering for the school canteen, can make the challenge feel overwhelming at times.

While all this was consuming me, a small ray of hope burst through and told me I’m doing what I have to do – tell stories.  So maybe someday I’ll buy the cakes instead.  The ray of light came in the form of a major WA writing award.

This particular script’s journey started in 2007 with a pitch to a fellow writing friend who always generously listens.  This time, she was silent and wide-eyed. She urged me to get it on the page.

COOKING THE STORY

I wandered around with the story in my head for some time, dissecting the characters who had “appeared”, making notes about them as they evolved and pitching to a select few. The characters began to “speak”, and I felt it was nearly time to put pen to paper … but not just yet.

I had worked with Karel of The Story Department previously on some short film scripts and when we met up at SPAA I pitched some projects to him, my family drama feature being one of them. He immediately responded to it and encouraged me to write up a synopsis which he later reviewed.

Meanwhile, I was unexpectedly thrust into shooting a documentary in the Pilbara that took me to a small outback ghost town where I spent some of the most memorable years of my youth.  My feature story happened to be set here, and the return to the desert was a catalyst for getting it onto the page.  My characters came alive out there!

After returning home physically and mentally exhausted, I knew the story was “cooked” and my characters were banging on the oven door to be let out. I sat down and purged the first draft of my script in 5 days.

FIRST DRAFT FURY

When the story is ready to transgress to the page, I have to get it out quickly or I may lose it (superstition and paranoia are key to my work!). Karel reviewed the first 30 pages, and I subsequently tweaked the draft. It was vital to have his professional support to give me direction and opinion.

There are so many questions you ask yourself, and a script consultant is the sounding board that helps you answer these appropriately. It also provides you with confidence to keep going forward.

I tweaked the completed draft on my own. To say I felt locked in a cupboard is an understatement:  alone, paranoid and seriously doubting whether it was all worth while. But my money box was empty, with no hope of ever being filled again.

I sent the script to an experienced working writer, a mentor who read for me. He graciously encouraged me that it was worthwhile and to keep going. I found that getting my script read by professionals was no easy task as everyone is so busy with their own projects, and I hate asking for favours.  Writing the first draft seemed easy in comparison.  How to move on from the page?

With the new Screen Australia guidelines requiring that less experienced writers team up with more experienced producers for script development, it is becoming the norm for writers to approach producers in the early development of their project.

Normally I wouldn’t approach a producer with an early draft, but now we have no choice. Desperate for funding, I set out to test the waters with a query letter and short synopsis, approaching those producers who I deemed would suit the type of project I had. Some politely advised their slates were full, others I never received any response from. Small bites on the line seemed hopeful then quickly dispersed.

Instead of writing I was now marketing and I realised that I had to improve my shitty pitching style immediately.

Meanwhile, I entered the script into the Bill Warnock Feature Writers Award in WA.  It was shortlisted and I was announced as the winner at the WA screen awards. As a result I was gratefully armed with a precious money box, full of development dollars thanks to Screenwest.

WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?

To make the dollars go as far as I could, I decided I wanted my own “Indivision” workshop.

I approached Karel who tailored a program specifically for my project and we immersed ourselves in a 3-day script intensive.

Those three days enabled me to immerse myself completely in my story, uninterrupted by the outside world. Rather than the usual to and fro of readers’ assessments and notes, the process was now much more organic, with brainstorming allowing ideas to be generated with vigor and fluidity. Working in this hothouse environment meant that the story quickly evolved. Problems were readily identified and solutions promptly found.

My story came alive in that room and for the first time I felt that it was possible for it to actually be produced. Karel’s expertise gave me hope, and that’s an essential thing for a writer who lives in another realm most of the time.

With a deadline approaching, I’m now embarking on my next draft and will then market the script to gain the interests of an appropriate producer. With the current climate so volatile and feature film in OZ traditionally not doing that well at the box office, my family drama feature film and I have a big hill to climb.

I’m banking that the industry will find its way to sustain great Australian films … otherwise we will lose who we are, and finding the words will be the least of our worries.

-Meg Shields

Meg Shields is an AWGIE nominee and recipient of the BIll Warnock Award with several feature and documentary projects in development.

Cleo Mees

Cleo Mees is a Sydney-based writer, filmmaker and dancer. With a background across several disciplines, her interest is in finding out how these different disciplines can intersect and inform each other.

In a specialised screenwriting magazine I read “omnipresent POV”(*). Both are plain wrong.

You’ve got to wonder: if they can’t even get the terminology right, there is reason to be concerned about their understanding of the concept.

The correct term is ‘omniscient’, and means ‘knowing everything’. It is the divine, ‘God’s eye’ perspective.

‘Omniscient POV’ in film means: a point of view outside any of the story’s characters. The audience knows and sees everything that is relevant to know about everybody in the story. Because film relies heavily on empathy with the characters, this is not a POV that would typically be taken throughout the story.

Although the technique sometimes works when told by a narrator and/or when a story is one long flashback, it is hardly ever used consistently throughout a film.

The fact that the term exists, doesn’t mean the technique is to be recommended in film.

The very nature of the omniscient POV goes against the essence of good screen drama, which is firmly grounded in strong emotional empathy with (an) individual character(s).

An omniscient POV suggests a certain distance from the characters, which is exactly what you don’t want. In my view, what most people mean by an omniscient POV is a shifting POV.

Frank Daniel used the term ‘dramatic irony‘, which makes more sense than the phrase ‘omniscient POV’. The irony lies in the fact that the audience knows something the protagonist doesn’t. And usually this information is crucial, it has a great impact on the protagonist’s journey.

The term dramatic irony is also consistent with the notion of ‘dramatic tension’, which is the foundation of all drama.

A great example of dramatic irony is used – and explained – in the movie STRANGER THAN FICTION when literature professor Hilbert (Dustin Hoffman) elaborates on the phrase “Little did he know…”. Because the technique is used as an explicit plot device, the notion of ‘omniscient character’ gets definitely blurred.

Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) may be the writer of the Harold Crick’s (Will Ferrell) life, but is she therefore truly omniscient?

Not in this film…

See also:

Introduction to POV
Omniscient POV
Shifting POV
When to Shift?
POV in Ratatouille’s Deleted Scene
POV as Controller of Tone
Hitchcock and POV

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!

I have just returned from SPAAmart, Australia’s film financing market, where Wojciech and I pitched THE MORTAL COIL to twenty-four industry executives from Australia and overseas. It was only the second time ever I applied for this competitive market. One hundred percent hit rate. Luck? Possibly. But my recent string of successes cannot be ignored as an unusually high hit rate. An AFC project manager with impressive film credits recently told an audience how his applications used to be rejected at a rate of 8/1. No future for me as an AFC project manager, I guess…

If luck is one factor, what other factors are there? The talent of the writer, first and foremost. I have the honour and the pleasure of working with brilliant people. Without an interesting concept you can edit until the cows come home. THE MORTAL COIL has the support of Richard Taylor at the famous Weta Workshop in Wellington. Given the amazing track record of that effects house, their attachment is a major bonus and it helps convincing decision makers that this project will fly.

STORY VS. SCRIPT EDITING

There is no doubt in my mind that the story development approach is another crucial factor in those recent funding successes. I used to get sucked into reading, analysing and assessing screenplays. Most scripts have enough weaknesses on the scene level for a script editor to provide his money’s worth in surface level feedback. The writer takes on board all the comments and does a – often completely useless – rewrite. My rejection rate used to be higher than average until I changed my development strategy. By focusing on the story, the writer doesn’t touch the screenwriting software until the structure works. This sounds like a longer process, but the reality is just the opposite.

If there is an easier way, why do we keep getting caught in this trap? Why do we all give feedback based on the script? I believe that we are scared to tell you – the writer – to fundamentally review the story. What if you walked away to find yourself another editor? It would mean the potential loss of some hard-earned business. Will those essential story changes guarantee a movie that works? Of course not. The most quoted line in the movie industry is William Goldman’s “Nobody knows anything.” But a well-structured story will increase the chances that better people read your script and give you better feedback so you get a step closer to funding.

Once you have successfully applied the principles of story structure and you’ve made it past the Ordeal of story and script development, remember Vogler and don’t confuse the Sword with the Elixir. I, too, am fully aware that the Final Confrontation is yet to come.

SHORT FILMS AND THE PRINCIPLES OF STORY STRUCTURE

The Australian Film Commission is paying $60,000 towards the production of ACID SUN, the first project I took on as a producer after becoming a father late 2004. Parental responsibility had brought with it a greater focus and a more radical selection of projects and short films just didn’t seem to cut it any longer. “Short films no longer work as a calling card.”

Karel FG Segers

Karel Segers wrote his first produced screenplay at age 17. Today he is a story analyst with experience in acquisition, development and production. He has trained students worldwide, and worked with half a dozen Academy Award nominees. Karel speaks more European languages than he has fingers on his left hand, which he is still trying to find a use for in his hometown of Sydney, Australia. The languages, not the fingers.

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel!