Spec Script Sale: “Nemesis”

November 14th, 2013 by

Warner Bros. acquires spec script “Nemesis” written by Christopher Wheeler. From Deadline:

I don’t recall ever writing a spec script deal story that includes setting someone to do a rewrite. But the Warner Bros deal includes the hiring of a new writer in Craig Rosenberg, the Australian writer who has the Takashi Shimizu -directed 7500 for CBS Films and The Quiet Ones for Lionsgate. How did this happen? Wheeler, the Australian writer who was known as “The Film Pope,” died four years ago at age 40 of natural causes. His script went dormant until Safehouse’s Joby Harold and Tory Tunnell met with Zareh Nalbandian and Jason Lust of Animal Logic and got it going again.

This speaks directly to The Spirit of the Spec: Write a story and put it out there. It can work for you… even if you’ve been deceased for four years.

By my count, this is the 79th spec script sale in 2013.

There were 89 spec script sales year-to-date in 2012.

Screenwriting Tip: Give your Nemesis a plausible world view

May 22nd, 2013 by

Here is a tip from my 1-week online class Write a Worthy Nemesis:

This tip is so simple, yet I constantly read scripts where the writer did not grasp the concept: Give your Nemesis a plausible world view.

Unless a Nemesis is a delusional psychotic, they will have a view of the world that makes sense to them. And frankly even a delusional psychotic will have a take on reality they believe, whether it’s God speaking to them through the neighbor’s dog or aliens invading through the water faucet. Maybe crazy to us, but sensible to them.

For non-psychotic Nemeses, by giving them a plausible world view, a writer humanizes the character. And as noted elsewhere, this brings the Nemesis closer to the reader because if we can understand what they see when they look at the universe, even if we disagree with it, we can share something of their humanity. That makes for a much more compelling Nemesis character.

In truth, it’s really more like this: Go into your character and discover their world view. They have one. It’s much more authentic to let them tell you what it is rather than laying one on them.

However you get there, determine what their world view is and let that inform all the choices you make as to the Nemesis character’s beliefs and behaviors.

This is one of 6 tips I provide in Write a Worthy Nemesis. Combined with 7 lectures [written by me], forum conversations and feedback, workshops where participants develop their Nemeses, and a 90-minute teleconference, it’s a great class. And there’s still time to join in with a terrific group of writers who are taking the course.

For more information, go here.

Write a Worthy Nemesis

May 14th, 2013 by

If the Protagonist is most often your story’s most important character, the Nemesis is not far behind. Indeed some of the greatest characters in film history have been Nemeses including Darth Vader (Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope), the Wicked Witch of the West (The Wizard of Oz), Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest), and the shark (Jaws).

If conflict is the stuff of great drama, there is perhaps no conflict more compelling than that of a Protagonist versus a Nemesis. But what makes for a worthy Nemesis? How to develop them?

Following up on my recent Create a Compelling Protagonist course, I’m offering Create a Worthy Nemesis. It is a 1-week screenwriting course that takes a unique approach to developing this pivotal character in that the starting point is the Protagonist. Here are the 7 lecture titles:

Monday, May 20 — Lecture 1: Nemesis v. Antagonist

Tuesday, May 21 — Lecture 2: Shadow v. Light

Wednesday, May 22 — Lecture 3: Fear v. Need

Thursday, May 23 — Lecture 4: Disunity v. Unity

Friday, May 24 — Lecture 5: Overlord v. Underdog

Saturday, May 25 — Lecture 6: Intelligence v. Wisdom

Sunday, May 26 — Lecture 7: Empathy v. Sympathy

Notice the clever theme of v. for versus? There’s a reason for that, one you will discover when you take the class. In addition to the seven lectures that I am writing, there is 24/7 forum feedback, six insider tips, a teleconference, and an opportunity to workshop one of your story’s Nemesis characters.

So sign up today right here and join me for a week’s journey into the dark side of the human soul, the place where great Nemeses figures dwell, waiting for you to find them.

Screenwriting Tip: Character work as iceberg

May 9th, 2013 by

In the current 1-week online class I’m teaching — Create a Compelling Protagonist — we have had an incredible experience, more than two dozen writers from all around the world uploading literally hundreds of posts, providing feedback and suggestions for each participant as they workshop their Protagonists. The energy is phenomenal and the quality of the comments equally so.

A question has come up: How much character development is enough?

In theory, I don’t think you can do too much character development. I say this coming from a specific place: Most of the scripts I read that aren’t good enough suffer because the characters are too thinly drawn, not complex enough to be compelling or interesting.

But Scott, I’m writing a genre piece, not “War and Peace.” Do I really need to do that much character development?

Yes, I think you do. Your job is to make your characters lift up off the page and come alive in the imagination of a script reader. To do that, you have to know them in a deep, personal, and specific way.

Otherwise you run the risk of just trafficking in caricatures.

That said, you’re not going to put all of what you know about your characters in the script. Rather most of the background and insights you have about your characters will exist off-screen.

Think of character work like an iceberg:


What you see above the surface of the water? That is what emerges in your script through a character’s actions and dialogue.

What you see below the surface? That is the depth of what you learn about the character when you develop them.

Bios. Questionnaires. Monologues. Sit-downs. Interviews. Archetypes. Whatever tools and techniques you use to go into your characters.

That informs your understanding of your characters.

That enables you to hear their voice.

That brings them to life.

All that content below the surface provides the foundation of what emerges of each character in your script.

So as you develop your characters, especially when you wonder if the effort is worth it, remember this: Everything you learn about your characters is helping to create an iceberg of understanding. Th3 10% that appears in the script derives from and is supported by the 90% of the work you do to bring that character to life.

Want to up your chops at character development? On May 20, I will be offering the companion class to Create a Compelling Protagonist. It’s called Write a Worthy Nemesis and you can learn about it here. If it’s anything like this current session, it will be awesome! So join me for a great week of learning, writing and creativity!

Stories do not need a Nemesis character

January 31st, 2013 by

I’ve addressed this subject before, but since it came up yesterday in the Pixar and the Craft of Storytelling class, I thought it would be a good opportunity to review these ideas again. One of the class participants Patrick O’Toole posted this in the forums:

It’s amazing that both Nemo and Toy Story have obstacles but not traditional antagonist.

My response:

You can go here to read a transcript I did of Andrew Stanton’s TED Talk when he notes this about the earliest days of the company:

In the early days of Pixar, before we truly understood the invisible workings of story, we were simply a group of guys going on our gut, going on our instincts. And it’s interesting to see how that led us places that are actually pretty good. You have to understand that at this time in 1993, what was considered a successful animated picture Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King. So when we pitched Toy Story to Tom Hanks for the first time, he walked in and said, “You don’t want me to sing, do you?” And I thought that epitomized perfectly what everybody thought animation had to be at the time.

But we really wanted to prove you could tell completely different stories in animation. We didn’t have any influence then, so we had a little secret list of rules that we kept to ourselves. They were:

  • No songs
  • No “I want” moment
  • No happy village
  • No love story
  • No villain

The irony is in the first year, our story was not working at all and Disney was panicking. So they privately got advice from a famous lyricist – who I won’t name – and he faxed them some suggestions. And we got a hold of that fax. And the fax said:

  • There should be songs
  • There should be an “I want” song
  • There should be a happy village song
  • There should be a love story
  • And there should be a villain

And thank goodness we were just too young, rebellious and contrairian at the time. That just gave us more determination to prove you could build a better story. A year after that, we did conquer it. And it just goes to prove storytelling has guidelines, not hard, fast rules.

No villain. And that can work. But not if there isn’t opposition!

One of the eight screenwriting principles I teach in my Core classes is this:

Character = Function.

So when we deal with a Nemesis / Antagonist character, what we really get when we boil them down to their core essence is opposition. They oppose the Protagonist.

But we can get away without having an actual Nemesis if we create a story that provides opposition for the Protagonist.

You mention Toy Story. That’s a classic example where the nemesis function gets passed around from character to character, situation to situation. I refer to that as masks, whereby a character may don a nemesis mask [or protagonist, attractor, mentor, trickster] from scene to scene. If Woody is the P, then at first Buzz is the N. Then Woody’s own jealousy of Buzz acts as the N which creates the circumstances by which Buzz gets knocked outside. Once Woody heads out to get Buzz, the circumstances they deal with including Pizza Planet provides opposition. Of course, Sid the ‘evil’ kid next door dons a nemesis mask. When Woody is trying to get on the moving van at the end, the other toys wear a nemesis mask.

And so yes, stories do not need a traditional Nemesis, however they do require opposition to the Protagonist.

This is yet another way in which using archetypes as part of the story-crafting process can open up the possibility of non-formulaic writing. Instead of a traditional villain, why not explore stories where the nemesis function gets passed along like a baton from character to character, situation to situation?

By the way, this Pixar class has almost 40 participants in it. A terrific group from all around the world. Online environments like that are an amazing way to dig into the theory and craft of screenwriting, and have a heck of a lot of fun in the process.

Create A Worthy Nemesis!

September 2nd, 2012 by

If the Protagonist is most often your story’s most important character, the Nemesis is not far behind. Indeed some of the greatest characters in film history have been Nemeses including Darth Vader (Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope), the Wicked Witch of the West (The Wizard of Oz), Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest), and the shark (Jaws).

If conflict is the stuff of great drama, there is perhaps no conflict more compelling than that of a Protagonist versus a Nemesis. But what makes for a worthy Nemesis? How to develop them?

Following up on my recent Create a Compelling Protagonist course, I’m offering my newest online class starting tomorrow: Create a Worthy Nemesis. It is a 1-week screenwriting course that takes a unique approach to developing this pivotal character. Here are the 7 lecture titles:

Monday, September 3 — Lecture 1: Nemesis v. Antagonist

Tuesday, September 4 — Lecture 2: Shadow v. Light

Wednesday, September 5 — Lecture 3: Fear v. Need

Thursday, September 6 — Lecture 4: Disunity v. Unity

Friday, September 7 — Lecture 5: Overlord v. Underdog

Saturday, September 8 — Lecture 6: Intelligence v. Wisdom

Sunday, September 9 — Lecture 7: Empathy v. Sympathy

Notice the clever theme of v. for versus? There’s a reason for that, one you will discover when you take the class. In addition to the seven lectures that I am writing, there is 24/7 forum feedback, a teleconference, and an opportunity to workshop one of your story’s Nemesis characters.

Also as a special treat, I will offer Log-A-Palooza, the chance for you to workshop one of your loglines, then submit your final version for review by none other than Max Millimeter: Hollywood Movie Producer Extraordinaire!

So sign up today right here and join me for a week’s journey into the dark side of the human soul, the place where great Nemeses figures dwell, waiting for you to find them.

NOTE: For those of you who entered a logline in The Quest initiative and have not claimed your free Core or Craft class, I have 3 of those slot left for the Nemesis class. I will give that complimentary class to the first people who email me requesting it. Or in lieu of taking the actual class, you may request a copy of the lectures. But remember: You must have submitted a logline for The Quest back in May to qualify for a complimentary Core or Craft class.

By the way, nearly 200 Quest entrants have taken a free Core or Craft class or received class lectures, so I’m working my way through the list, as promised. If you have yet to claim your ‘gift,’ you may go here to see what upcoming Core or Craft classes I will be teaching, and if you are interested in one of them for your free course or set of lectures, email me.

Humanize your Nemesis

April 26th, 2012 by

Yet another fascinating discussion in my current Character Development Keys class, this one about how to create a “worthy Nemesis.” An excerpt from what I posted today:

Frankly that’s one reason why I choose to call this archetype Nemesis rather than Antagonist. Here’s a quote from my Core III: Character class, Lecture 3: Nemesis:

The word “nemesis” has an interesting linguistic history: Nemesis, the ancient goddess of vengeance. Dictionary.com defines nemesis as “an opponent or rival whom a person cannot best or overcome.” And that is why I prefer Nemesis over the term antagonist. Whereas the latter is merely an “adversary,” a Nemesis represents someone who by definition holds the upper hand against the Protagonist.

By all rights, they should defeat the hero, thus immediately casting the Protagonist as an underdog — and this dynamic makes for a more interesting and compelling story.

“A worthy nemesis.” How many times have I heard that phrase tossed around in studio story meetings? Producers and execs know that without at least one strong oppositional character, someone working against the wants and needs of the Protagonist, it’s hard to generate tension and, therefore, drama.

One key I have found in doing this is to make the Nemesis a real flesh-and-blood type of character. However much time you spend digging into the Protagonist to find their humanity and core essence, you should spend an equivalent amount of time and energy with the Nemesis. In fact, one of the values of working with archetypes is it allows you to do an exercise whereby you switch Protagonists — that is you look at the story universe through each character’s eyes as if they are the story’s P. This is especially valuable for the Nemesis, a character some writers find difficulty writing because they are… well… bad. By looking at things through their eyes as the P, it’s much easier to humanize them.

When you humanize the Nemesis, that brings them closer emotionally to the script reader. And that creates a really interesting psychological dynamic where the reader now finds him/herself identifying even in a little way with the Bad Guy.

Here is a great little example: When Hannibal Lecter says he will help the FBI find Buffalo Bill, what is his request? He could say, “I want a naked baby to devour raw.” Ugh, right? Can’t relate to that. Instead, he says, “I want a view. I want to see trees. Water.” Everybody can relate to that. In that moment, we can, if we let ourselves, almost feel sorry for Lecter. And that creates a more multidimensional experience for the character and the reader in association with the character.

So a part of being a worthy opponent is all those things you list above, absolutely. But also the human element. Because in doing that, we make the Nemesis worthy of a reader’s attention due to our increased identification with him/her.

The Nemesis character is almost always hugely important to a story for multiple reasons, one of them being that they generally are involved in a relationship with a Protagonist that pivots on key existential questions: Who is the Protagonist? What is the nature of their soul? What is at the core of their being? Will they thrive or die emotionally, even spiritually?

To the degree we humanize the Nemesis, we make them that much more powerful as characters because they become more intriguing and compelling.

What is your favorite Nemesis character?

January 12th, 2012 by

Received this tweet from @khanb1:

Whats your fav nemesis archetype of all time? I want to know, what makes for a memorable nemesis? Someone we love to hate?

I thought that would make an excellent question for the GITS community. What is your favorite movie Nemesis?

To get this party started, here is the Top 50 Villains as selected by the American Film Institute.

1 Dr. Hannibal Lecter

2 Norman Bates

3 Darth Vader

4 The Wicked Witch of the West

5 Nurse Ratched

6 Mr. Potter

7 Alex Forrest

8 Phyllis Dietrichson

9 Regan MacNeil

10 The Queen

11 Michael Corleone

12 Alex De Large

13 HAL 9000
(in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY)

14 The Alien
(in ALIEN)

15 Amon Goeth

16 Noah Cross

17 Annie Wilkes

18 The Shark
(in JAWS)

19 Captain Bligh

20 Man
(in BAMBI)

21 Mrs. John Iselin

22 Terminator

23 Eve Harrington

24 Gordon Gekko

25 Jack Torrance

26 Cody Jarrett

27 Martians

28 Max Cady

29 Reverend Harry Powell

30 Travis Bickle

31 Mrs. Danvers

32 Clyde Barrow & Bonnie Parker

33 Count Dracula

34 Dr. Szell

35 J.J. Hunsecker

36 Frank Booth

37 Harry Lime

38 Caesar Enrico Bandello

39 Cruella De Vil

40 Freddy Krueger

41 Joan Crawford

42 Tom Powers

43 Regina Giddens

44 Baby Jane Hudson

45 The Joker

46 Hans Gruber

47 Tony Camonte

48 Verbal Kint

49 Auric Goldfinger

50 Alonzo Harris

Obviously a lot of old white guys voted for this list. What about Agent Smith in The Matrix? Or T-1000 in Terminator 2? Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas? Jigsaw in Saw?

Besides several of the characters in the list above have other narrative functions in their respective movies. Verbal Kint is a Trickster. Travis Bickle is a Protagonist. Hannibal Lecter is a Mentor.

So perhaps we need a new list specifically tied to characters who actively oppose the movie’s Protagonists. What are your favorite Nemesis characters in movies?

Reader Question: Do Nemesis characters necessarily HAVE to suffer in the end?

May 2nd, 2010 by

Reader question via email from Darren McLeod:

Hey Scott,

I’m currently having a bit of a problem with my ending. As it currently stands, the protagonist solves his problem and everything works out for him in the end. However, nothing bad comes of the bad guys who were plotting against him.

My rationale for this is twofold: 1) the protagonist is not the type of guy who would believe in revenge or be clever enough to achieve it, 2) the bad guys are cops who were doing what they were commanded to do by a superior (that the protagonist is unaware of, and therefore couldn’t really get revenge on).

Even with that rationale, though, it seems weird to me that the bad guys get off so easy without actually learning a lesson. Can this happen in a movie, or do the bad guys need to suffer for the audience to be satisfied?

So Darren, if I’m reading you correctly, your story’s Nemesis characters — those who oppose the efforts of the Protagonist and serve as a threat to the P — are actually not ‘bad guys,’ just doing their jobs; indeed it appears they think the Protagonist is a bad guy, yes?

In theory, that can work. Perhaps you go the other route and have the Nemesis characters end up siding with the P. Do you remember the guys who came to arrest George Bailey in It’s A Wonderful Life? Eventually they tear up the warrant and join in singing with the rest of Bedford Falls revelers as George’s good news piles up [minute 6:25 of the clip below]:

In fact, the movie’s primary Nemesis Mr. Potter doesn’t suffer anything at the end, rather the story’s conclusion focuses solely on all the good stuff that happens to George. Therefore based on It’s A Wonderful Life alone, we can answer the question — “Is it mandatory for a Nemesis character to suffer at the end?” — with a resounding “No!”

But — and this is a big but — the more a Nemesis character tilts toward being a genuinely ‘bad’ individual, the more the need for some sort of consequence. I suppose it’s almost like a mathematical formula:

a x b = c

a = Nemesis
b = how bad they are
c = how much of a consequence they need to suffer

The worse they are in the ‘bad’ department, the greater the consequence. The rationale behind that is pretty simple: the more bad-ass a Nemesis is, the more negative emotion gets generated toward the Nemesis on the part of a script reader. And at the end of the script, the reader has to have a place to focus that negative emotion and, in a sense, resolve that psychological tension.

Let’s take The Silence of the Lambs. The Nemesis is Jamie Gumb (aka Buffalo Bill). He is a serial killer. He has kidnapped poor Catherine Martin. He is skinning his victims to sew together a female body suit. And in the Final Struggle, he pulls a gun on the Protagonist Clarice Starling with the intent of killing her.

In other words, he’s really bad guy.

So how satisfactory would it have been for a script reader or moviegoer to have a Final Struggle where Clarice simply arrests Buffalo Bill?

No, movie logic dictates Clarice must blow him away:

Another classic example is the 1987 hit movie Fatal Attraction. Per Wikipedia:

Alex Forrest [Glenn Close - Nemesis] was originally scripted to commit suicide at the end of the movie by slashing her throat. Her plan was to make it look as if Dan [Michael Douglas - Protagonist] had murdered her, for which he would be arrested. Although Beth [Anne Archer] saves the day by finding a revealing tape that Alex had sent Dan and taking it to police, test audiences did not respond well.

This resulted in a three-week reshoot for the action-filled sequence in the bathroom and Alex’s death by gunshot. Her shooting by Beth juxtaposes the two characters, with Alex becoming the victim and Beth taking violent action to protect her family.

In the 2002 Special Edition DVD, Close comments that she had concerns re-shooting the movie’s ending because she believed, and was backed by psychiatrists, that the character would “self-destruct and commit suicide.”[2] She gave in on her concerns, however, and recorded the new sequence after having fought against the change for two weeks.[2] The movie was initially released in Japan with the original ending. The original ending first appeared on a special edition VHS and LaserDisc release by Paramount in 1992, and was included on the film’s DVD release a decade later.

On the one hand, Dan definitely has some culpability in the situation because he willingly had an affair with Alex. But Alex goes totally stalker to the point where she’s threatening Dan and Beth’s children, even boiling the family’s pet rabbit in their own kitchen.

Bad, very bad.

Which is more than likely why test audiences “did not respond well” to the original ending — when Alex commits suicide. No, they wanted to see some sort of vengeance meted out toward her character — they wanted her to suffer. Perfect choice for Beth to do it because Dan is, as noted, partially culpable for the situation and Beth is an innocent protecting her family.

Here is a March 11, 1992 CBS “This Morning” news piece in which all the primary players in the movie — Glenn Close, Michael Douglas, Anne Archer, and director Adrian Lyne — talk about how they ending up re-shooting the ending:

Indeed in the news segment, Michael Douglas nails the point:

“The picture was wonderful, but there was a problem with the ending. It didn’t build up. No one quite anticipated how much you [the moviegoer] would hate this woman after she went after your family. So the original ending where she takes her own life, you [the moviegoer] were left unfulfilled.”

After Close and Archer discuss their misgivings about the new ending, Douglas – who started off as a movie producer (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) – nails the point again:

“It did affect her role [Alex], she’s right, her character. But… sometimes your character has to work for what’s best for the film.

In other words, what works best for the moviegoer — in this case, an ending that provided a sequence of events that allowed them to release their “hate” for Alex’s character.

While your story, Darren, may work where the Nemesis avoids suffering, to the degree that you work on stories in the future where you do have a really nefarious Nemesis, then you will almost assuredly need to provide an ending where that character experiences some significant consequences in order to satisfy the need the script reader / moviegoer will have to resolve their negative energy toward the Nemesis.