A quick reminder the deadline for the Academy Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting is in 2 days (May 1). If you go here, you can see live-time stats comparing the number of entrants this year to last. Unless there is a mad rush of submissions over the next 60 hours or so, it appears there may be fewer entrants in 2013 than 2012.

I am in no way affiliated with the Nicholl, but having known many winners including my interviews with all of the 2012 honorees, it’s safe to say this is the most influential of all screenwriting competitions.

That said I continue to look for alternate ways for Hollywood outsiders to break into the business through their screenwriting. That’s why I created The Quest Initiative, a chance for a select group of writers to go through a unique 24-week screenwriting program, theory and practice, ending up with an original screenplay and a chance to have it sent out to reps — all for free.

That’s also why I’m quite interested to see how the Black List script hosting service plays out. To be clear: I receive no benefit from that, my support for it is based on how it’s constructed and how it works, perhaps the most transparent and cost-efficient way for a writer from anywhere in the world to get their completed script in front of potentially 1,500 industry insiders. It worked for Ireland-based writer Declan O’Dwyer who recently set up his script “Broken Cove”. Plus at least a dozen more writers I know of who have made deals and gotten representation by using the Black List site.

The Nicholl. The Black List site. The Quest Initiative. It’s an exciting time, more opportunities than ever for screenwriters anywhere to access Hollywood.

The key as always: Write a great script!

No matter what other good things happen to screenwriter Justin Kremer, he will always have this fact as part of his personal history: His script “McCarthy” was the first one to generate enough interest in the new Black List script-hosting site to land the ‘new’ writer representation — with CAA and Madhouse Entertainment no less. The heat generated off that resulted in “McCarthy” circulating rapidly around Hollywood, leading to it making the 2012 Black List.

Justin was kind enough to do an interview and we had an extensive conversation. Today in Part 5, Justin talks about some aspects of the screenwriting craft:

Scott: How about some craft questions here, Justin?

Justin:  Sure.

Scott:  OK, let’s start from the very beginning. How do you come up with story ideas?

Justin:  There’s rarely one concrete way. I find myself consistently attracted toward source material, not just because there’s stuff already there for you. I think it’s just the most rewarding to crack.

With “McCarthy,” obviously, I had at least some structure and some narrative already in place, but it can really come from anything.

There are a bunch of sites I like to read every day that just kind of stimulate the mind and get you thinking about stuff.One of those that has been an invaluable resource is a site called Longform, which posts these amazing long‑form articles about everything from crime to science. It has everything from that initial “Wired” article that inspired “Argo,” to the more contemporary stuff. It really gets you thinking about character and story in a different way.

Scott:  What’s your take on high concept?

Justin:  I’m more character driven, but to be able to pitch your idea in a really concise and concrete way is something that is unbelievably important.

I know, for example, that when John Logan was trying to figure out his next spec would be in the mid to late 90s, he told his agent that he wanted to write “King Lear meets football”, That became “Any Given Sunday.” If you can very simply describe exactly what you’re trying to do and give someone else a clear sense of that, that is so valuable.

Scott:  How much time do you spend on prep writing, like brainstorming, character development, plotting, research, outlining?

Justin:  I’m heavy on research. I spend as much time researching as I do outlining, normally a couple weeks for each. “McCarthy” was particularly heavy on that front, because I had to figure out exactly what time period I was trying to tackle. To figure that out, you have to know exactly where Joe was in each part of his life and what best encapsulates McCarthy’s arc as a character. I had legal pads full of notes, creating a timeline of Joe’s life and trying to figure out what was most suitable for adaptation.

It’s so clear when you’re reading scripts what’s well researched and what has had less thought put into it. The scripts that tend to amaze me are so detail‑oriented. It can be the littlest detail that grounds me in the world of the piece.

Scott Myers:  In terms of outlining, are you one of those three‑by‑five inch index card guys or do you have some sort of sophisticated software you use to wrangle the plot?

Justin Kremer:  I’ve tried index cards, never really fell in love with them. I’m more of a big Microsoft Word document kind of guy. “McCarthy” was interesting because I didn’t outline nearly as much as I did on other projects. It was more research heavy. With “McCarthy,” I gave myself three to four major points to hit in the first act, six in the second, and another three in the third, to know “This is where I need to go”. The rest is up to you. I left a lot of room to play around in between those beats.

It was interesting to work like that. On one hand, it’s frightening, but on the other, it really gives you a lot of room to play and be creative.

Scott:  For years, I’ve had the same approach, where I figure out 10 Plotline points. That gives enough structure. You have these sign posts where you know where you’re going, but then that also allows you the freedom to have the story emerge in a more organic fashion. Is that what I’m hear you’re saying, a similar approach that you did with “McCarthy”?

Justin:  Totally.

Scott:  How about character development? Now, this is a little different because you’re adapting a biopic here, an actual historical figure. Yet, you’re opening up a side of the figure that the world had not quite seen. How did you go about developing the characters in your script “McCarthy”?

Justin:  I think each character had a very distinct arc from the jump except for Don Surine, who was Joe’s confidant. Don is a creation of a few staffers that Joe was close with. He required quite a bit of creative license. I think Joe and Jean, their arcs were very clear. Part of what fascinated me about Joe, and this is eventually something that I took creative license with as well, was how unrepentant he was. I decide to present him with a climactic choice in the third act – a chance to apologize for his actions.

What happens is that Joe is essentially given two choices. He can be censured by the Senate and publicly disgraced, or he can stand up on the Senate floor and he can say, “I’m sorry, I was wrong,” and this venom will go away.

Joe didn’t have that choice in real life, but I wanted to give him that choice. He’s presented with this decision and ultimately, he unleashes on his colleagues…ranting and raving. Telling them-  “I’ll never apologize for what I did. How dare you try and criticize me when I’m trying to protect the country?” I thought it was a great character moment, and I think it was really crucial for him to be presented with a choice.

Scott:  Are some of the projects you’re considering now, are they completely fictional, not based on historical characters?

Justin:  Yes.

Scott:  What lessons will you take from “McCarthy” in terms of developing entirely fictional characters, or have you thought about that process?

Justin:  I’m not sure that I have. I think what’s most important to me is entering with an understanding of exactly what the arc is, because without that, I feel lost. Knowing where our characters are starting up and where they’re ending reigns supreme for me. The impotence of providing your protagonist with a climactic choice was one of the bigger lessons of this script. Some of my writing unfolded with this banal inevitably prior to McCarthy. My protagonists didn’t always have to be active – to make a crucial decision. That has changed now. When it comes to the idea of the climactic choice, I always think of “Apocalypse Now” – which is one of the greatest examples of how much tension can be derived from that moment.

Tomorrow in Part 6, Justin talks about more aspects of the screenwriting craft.

For Part 1, go here.

For Part 2, go here.

For Part 3, go here.

For Part 4, go here.

Justin is repped by CAA and Madhouse Entertainment.

Twitter: @Kremsicles.

Nice feature on the Black List featuring some choice quotes from Franklin:

Franklin Leonard is the man behind The Black List, and he said crowdsourcing is the answer.

On one side of the marketplace, screenwriters submit their work which is evaluated by a team of readers. If it is good, they post the scripts on the site. On the other side, over 1,000 film industry professionals are registered members of the community. They have access to the curated selection of screenplays and vote to create a ranking system that surfaces the best content.

“Over 30,000 pieces of material are registered at the Writers Guild of America every year,” Leonard said in an interview at VentureBeat’s office. “Of that number, only 200 are released. How do you make sure those 200 are the best? The current filtering mechanisms are inefficient. By taking a systematic, crowdsourced approach to identifying quality, regardless of executive considerations or making money, and aggregating that, the scripts end up being successful.”

—-

“We are expanding beyond the highly insular, incredibly opaque universe that is Hollywood,” Leonard said. “In a world where if you don’t have the right network or connections, you don’t have the opportunity to tell your story in film, we are saying that if you are good, the only distance between you and becoming a full-time Hollywood screenwriter is your talent. The things The Black List is highlighting are things will see in movie theaters in two, five, 10 years down the road and at the Oscars.”

For the rest of the article, go here.

No matter what other good things happen to screenwriter Justin Kremer, he will always have this fact as part of his personal history: His script “McCarthy” was the first one to generate enough interest in the new Black List script-hosting site to land the ‘new’ writer representation — with CAA and Madhouse Entertainment no less. The heat generated off that resulted in “McCarthy” circulating rapidly around Hollywood, leading to it making the 2012 Black List.

Justin was kind enough to do an interview and we had an extensive conversation.  Today in Part 2, Justin discusses “McCarthy” and why he decided this story would make a movie and how he went about crafting the script.

Scott:  Perfect segue. Let’s talk about “McCarthy.” That’s not the first script you’ve written. How many scripts had you written at the point when you wrote “McCarthy”?

Justin:  It was my fourth feature.

Scott:  You were able to put on your development executive’s cap. You know that this is not something that conventional wisdom would say is in the wheelhouse of what would get made. What about this idea, this story concept, suggested to you this should be a movie?

Justin:  I was amazed by Joe’s life, in terms of our perception of him as a historical figure, our very limited perception, versus the reality, and who he actually was. I knew that this was a very tough script, but I believed that if it was executed well, it could shed light on a guy who played a enormous role in the Cold War and American domestic and foreign policy in the ’50s. I was completely amazed when I was reading about Joe, about who this guy actually was. I had known so little about him previously.

I’ve always been a bit of a history buff. The extent of my knowledge about Joe has always just been he was a villain who created the House of Un‑American Activities Committee. He blacklisted people. Some of them were in Hollywood. Then he fell, and that’s that. I didn’t know who he was or why he did what he did.

When I first picked up this book called “Joe McCarthy: Reexamining the Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator,” I thought, “That’s an interesting title.” I was blown away by what I found. I thought Joe was simply an opportunist. He’s just a guy that wanted attention, that wanted to be loved and that’s something we see throughout his life.

When Joe was in the military, he, by all accounts, had a low‑level desk job. Joe returns home to Wisconsin and he’s telling everyone that will listen, “They called me Tail‑Gunner Joe in the army. I shot down 30 planes. I’m a war hero.” He always craved attention and love, desperately. That fascinated me. It’s just a very human side of him that we haven’t seen.

So I saw him as this opportunist who took an issue that was already at the forefront of our country’s dialogue, seized it and used it to ascend, but then…something crazy happens. Joe grew so deeply to believe in his own BS to a certain extent, and became incredibly paranoid by the end of his life.

There’s a scene at the end of the script where Joe is tapping a phone with a pen because he thinks he’s breaking up a wiretap from the Reds… that’s real. Thats how deeply paranoid he was. I was really amazed by his journey. As a writer, I am always attracted to the heavy drama and this certainly had Shakespearean qualities to it.

Scott:  Pragmatically what did you think about the fact there were movies like “Good Night and Good Luck” or “J. Edgar” that had come out before?

Justin:  ”Good Night and Good Luck” was actually one of the inspirations for the script. I knew nothing about Edward R. Murrow prior to seeing that film. When I did see Good Night, I fell in love with it. I think what Clooney does in that film — that I aspired to do with this script — was capture the pervasive sense of fear and paranoia that hung over everything in that time period.

I felt like that really related to where we were as a country in post 9/11 War on Terror America. I had written the script before “J. Edgar” so I was completely unaware as to that piece, but “Good Night and Good Luck” was definitely a big inspiration.

Scott:  I’ve tried my hand at a few biopics. I think it’s safe to say adapting a real person’s life as a screenplay is one of the most difficult tasks there is. First, most people’s lives don’t lay out with a coherent narrative structure, like a beginning, middle, and end.

Justin:  Totally.

Scott:  And yet, you seem to have found one of them in the script, in “McCarthy.” Did you think of his life, as depicted in your script, as that kind of three‑act structure: rise, power, fall?

Justin:  I actually didn’t. I was really resistant, when I was writing the first draft, to showing the rise. I came at this thing like this – I’m going to show you Joe at his peak on page one and then at page 100 I’m going to show you him at the bottom. It would just be a story of descent.

But, I think, as the drafts evolved what became most interesting to me was Joe’s rise. I think it’s the most revelatory. That’s actually the part of the script that I like most now, ironically.

It was really difficult figuring out how many years to tackle and how you encapsulate a life. How far do you go? I think films that have done it beautifully, like “Moneyball,” hone in on a very specific and contained period but simultaneously leave you with the sense that you’ve seen all there is to see. The goal was to find that moment – that peak.

Scott:  Well, you led right into something I wanted to talk to you about. Let me present this statement and get your reaction. In a biopic, it’s almost more important what events and dynamics you choose to omit than include.

Justin:  Absolutely. There’s just so much there. Joe’s life, “McCarthy,” in many respects, could have been a six part miniseries. He had a fascinating relationship with the infamous Roy Cohn, that I tried plenty of times to include bits of that in the script, but ultimately, it just didn’t work.

Scott:  I’m assuming you’ve seen “Lincoln,” yes?

Justin:  I have.

Scott:  Did you get a sense that both of you, with your script and what happened with “Lincoln,” they took a similar approach. It’s really a slice of life. I mean, it’s like, they’re not attempting to say, this is the beginning to end of this character, rather this is a critical moment or period of time in the character’s life. Did you see a similarity between what you did in “McCarthy” and what they did in “Lincoln”?

Justin:  I did not. But I’m honored you even made the comparison.

Scott:  Another challenge for the story is handling all those time jumps, not only the transitions from time period to time period, and you must have had, I don’t know, 20, 25, but also, building a sense of narrative drive so that one scene or a set of scenes flows naturally and with energy to the next. How much of a struggle was that for you? How much effort did you put into that?

Justin:  It was a struggle. I think the biggest challenge in scripts like “McCarthy” that cover a number of years and follow one character, is that audiences are often taken out of the story when there’s a time jump, especially in the first act. I didn’t want that emotional disconnect to exist. I desperately wanted a sense of continuity there, and struggled through multiple drafts to find that, but hopefully I did. It’s something that’s at the forefront of your mind because you want the audience to feel like they’re on one continuous journey as opposed to a disjointed narrative that’s all over the place.

Scott:  I noticed that you used several pre-laps to help with those transitions. What were some of the other tricks and techniques you used to handle all those time jumps? Do you remember?

Justin:  Very good question. I think montage was key in a number of respects. There are two big montages in the script. The first involves Joe’s coworkers beginning their first investigation into the US Army Corps. This is Joe’s first big stab at the issue, and he thinks that he’s onto a massive earth‑shattering conspiracy that will make him a hero. Finding a way to encapsulate the investigation into two or three pages was key. Toward the end of the script, Joe is about to be censured by the senate – which is this very rare demerit by which you’re completely publicly disgraced by your peers.

Joe has an opportunity to avoid that, but what he tries to do first is to rally the troops. Get out the vote. He meets with his fellow senators, jumping from state to state, and pleading his case. He’s telling them, “This is why I did what I did. You can’t censure me. I’m just a guy like you. I’m just fighting for the people.” I think placing those conversations, of which there were many, in one tight montage really helped compress the story.

Scott:  You zeroed in on something that I think is probably key to the success of montages. Basically to come up with a central theme, a narrative for each montage that has a beginning, middle, and an end. There’s a flow to it. There’s this own unique little storyline. You did that with both of those montages. Were you conscious of that as you were writing those?

Justin:  That was the hope. Yeah, thank you. You need to have a clear idea of exactly what the montage is, and not be writing a montage just to write montage because it’s fun and because it’s easier in some respects. When you have that clear beginning, middle and end, the tool is beneficial. It can work in such a limited amount of space.

I think Joe’s plea to his colleagues takes up a page or a page and a half, and that was something that was much longer in the first draft. But when you have a clear understanding of the thematic core of the montage, and understand exactly what needs to be accomplished, it becomes significantly easier.

Tomorrow in Part 2, Justin rounds out his insights into the writing of “McCarthy” and how he got his script into the hands of people in Hollywood.

Please stop by comments to thank Justin for taking the time for the interview and post any follow-up questions you may have.

For Part 1, go here.

Justin is repped by CAA and Madhouse Entertainment.

Twitter: @Kremsicles.

No matter what other good things happen to screenwriter Justin Kremer, he will always have this fact as part of his personal history: His script “McCarthy” was the first one to generate enough interest in the new Black List script-hosting site to land the ‘new’ writer representation — with CAA and Madhouse Entertainment no less. The heat generated off that resulted in “McCarthy” circulating rapidly around Hollywood, leading to it making the 2012 Black List.

Justin was kind enough to do an interview and we had an extensive conversation.  Today in Part 1, Justin discusses his background, how he wound his way to Hollywood, and started as a screenwriter:

Scott Myers:  First of all, congratulations. You must be terribly excited by everything that’s happened to you of late.

Justin Kremer:  Thank you, I appreciate it. It’s beyond my wildest dreams. Even after all of the craziness of getting signed, being on the Black List was always a thing that was on my bucket list…something that I never expected.

I was so overwhelmed to be among people like Young Il Kim, Julia Hart, Tyler Marceca, and so many incredible talents. It’s a tremendous honor.

Scott:  It’s a terrific achievement and I think you certainly deserve it with your script “McCarthy.” Let’s start with the basics. How did you start writing? When did that become part of your life?

Justin:  I had always written as a child. It was never usually about film. I started in second or third grade writing about the previous night’s Yankee game or little sports diaries. Those journals became a wrestling chronicle when I grew obsessed with wrestling back in fifth and sixth grade.

My writing kept evolving and I took a film class in high school when I was 16 and really fell in love with the form. It was the first time I had been exposed to stuff like the “The Godfather” or “On the Waterfront.” Stuff that completely blew my mind and opened me up to this new world.

I fell in love with the form and was thinking, “What if I decided to write a script?” I read a little book, I don’t even remember which one. It was not a Robert McKee and wrote my first script when I was 16 on Microsoft Word with no formatting, no margins. It was 80 pages and a disaster. I fell in love with the craft and even though looking back, the script makes me cringe, it was a nice stepping‑stone to keep developing.

Scott:  Were you always as movie person or was it when you discovered it in that class when you were 16 years old that really turned you on to movies?

Justin:  I always was, but I don’t think I had the taste until I saw the classics. When I was growing up, I think I saw L.A. Confidential and I was 11 or 12, and that movie blew me away. Taking that class was a really formative experience in terms of allowing me to really delve into the form and fall in love with it.

Scott:  Did you pursue film and writing when you went to college?

Justin:  I did. I went to NYU, the Tisch School of the Arts for Dramatic Writing my freshman year. I had a good experience there but ultimately I decided I needed a change of scenery, so I transferred to SUNY Purchase’s dramatic writing conservatory.

I think what’s interesting is that I got a very unique experience, accidentally, because the two schools cannot be more different in terms of how they teach screenwriting. Both are great but they’re really different.

NYU, at the end of our freshman year, we had to write 30 pages of a feature and a seven or eight page treatment for the remainder of that feature. At Purchase, we spent my first year writing a five‑page scene, and it was very much the macro versus the micro.

Both approaches really helped me. It’s so easy to overlook the little stuff. At the same time, it’s so easy to overlook the overall art when you’re so focused on the minutia. Both experiences were really valuable.

Scott:  How many scripts did you end up writing when you were at Purchase?

Justin:  That’s a good question. We built up pretty slowly because it was so much about the micro and we studied playwriting, television writing, and documentary filmmaking as well. The emphasis wasn’t completely on screenwriting until our junior and senior year. I wrote one feature when I was there, one three‑act play, a pair of TV specs, a short Updike adaptation, and a variety of other smaller projects.

Scott:  You graduate from Purchase and you set your mind toward becoming involved in the development side of the movie industry.

Justin:  Yep. Once I fell in love with screenwriting, I became a huge screenwriting nerd, so when a new spec was sold, I’d be dying to read it and get my hands on it. I was lucky enough to have some access to what was out there and stuff that had been on the Black List, so I was always reading a ton to try to learn.

Reading’s always been one of the most important learning tools for me. My senior year of college, I started interning for a film‑financier in New York (Black Bear Pictures), a company that I loved and shared the same exact creative sensibility as I. It was a place where I actually had a voice and didn’t feel like just a measly intern with no credibility and that the work was just dead end.

I worked for the company for a couple months. At the time, the company was limited to two people. I was looking for a job when I graduated. I stayed on after graduation, despite no promise of a job, because I loved the company and believed in the films we were making. Eventually they ended up hiring me, which was great. I think the most valuable part of that experience for this world is twofold. Being able to read a little bit of everything – because the company was genre‑agnostic, so we would read everything from the 500k micro‑budget to the hundred‑million‑dollar tent poles.

That was really valuable in terms of understanding the marketplace, and just as a reader, the thing that I found the most that almost nothing surprises you at a certain point. It’s those rare scripts, that few dozen that you encounter out of the hundreds that are so unique, like Graham Moore’s “Imitation Game”, SR Bindler’s “The Bone Game”, Jez Butterworth’s “Flag Day.” They have such a unbelievably unique voice from page one.

As I was writing, I began to think – how do I subvert expectation? How do I write something that will actually stand out? So many of these scripts I read were very well written but so very strictly adherent to formula. I was just looking for a really unique angle. On another note, I think what was also really valuable was getting to actually work with a writer on the development side, because we were developing a property. Having the opportunity to contribute notes and listen to the conversations that occur between a writer and producer was very informative.

Scott:  Is it fair to say that one of the lessons you took away from that experience was being able to put on your development executive cap as a writer, looking at your material that way?

Justin:  Totally. And not just that too. I also, because we were a financier, have the financier cap drilled into my head now. Whenever I’m thinking of an idea, not just on the creative side, I’m thinking about, how could I make this attractive to financiers? What is its foreign value? Stuff like that that we dealt with on an everyday basis.

Scott:  That’s a really valuable skill set to have, to be able to have that kind of understanding, that what you put on the page has a practical impact in terms of what happens in production ‑‑ not only production, but marketing and everything else. So it sounds like that was a tremendous education for you.

Justin:  It was, but at the same time, you also have to throw all that stuff out, at a certain point. “McCarthy” is not a commercial idea. It’s not something that anyone would have encouraged me to write. A lot of the stories I’m attracted to are in a tougher space. If you’re passionate about it creatively, then you ignore the financier side of your brain. You just have to.

Tomorrow in Part 2, we dig into “McCarthy” and learn why Justin decided this story would make a movie and how he went about crafting the script.

Please stop by comments to thank Justin for taking the time for the interview and post any follow-up questions you may have.

Justin is repped by CAA and Madhouse Entertainment.

Twitter: @Kremsicles.

On a whim yesterday, I posted this:

Here is a word cloud based on the loglines for the 78 Black List 2012 scripts:

Okay, all you clever people. Time to come up with a logline based on some of the key terms in the word cloud. For instance, take “ruthless father” and “ex-con son,” link them up with “goes to war” or “government conspiracy,” who knows what you get.

By the way, no zombies, vampires or aliens? What’s up with that?!?!

Franklin Leonard took note and sent me this:

I love this. Let’s push it a little further.

People’s answers can be put in the comments and/or tweeted with the hashtag #BLWordCloud.

The people who come up with your favorite five get a free read at the new site.

We already have quite a few loglines in the original thread. With an offer for a free script evaluation from Black List readers, I would think we would get a bunch more.

So post your loglines based on the Black List 2012 Word Cloud — here or Tweet them with the above hashtag. Let’s take submissions through Friday, December 21 at midnight Pacific. And you know what? I’ll let Max Millimeter decide which five are his favorites. You know what that means: Make them entertaining.

Thanks, Franklin, for that offer, very much in the spirit of the holidays!

Now let’s see your BL Word Cloud inspired loglines!

For a larger image of the Word Cloud, go here.

UPDATE: Two things. First the cutoff is midnight tonight [Friday, December 21] Pacific time. Second, this whole thing started as a lighthearted romp, something to engage people’s creativity and have some fun. I’d like to keep it in that spirit, even with the gracious offer to have five people selected for a free script read by readers affiliated with the new Black List service. It was in that spirit that I enlisted Max Millimeter to be the judge.

A few folks have raised some questions: (1) “How many loglines may I post?” Since I didn’t specify anything upfront, I would say you can submit as many as you’d like. That said, even in a fun challenge like this, you should focus on quality over quantity. (2) “Since there are only about 100 words in the word cloud, there is bound to be overlap with loglines. How will you sort that out in terms judging?” Good question. And hopefully a good learning point for all of us, the difference between the logline for Dude, Where’s My Car? — “Two potheads wake up from a night of partying and can’t remember where they parked their car” — and The Hangover — Three groomsmen lose their about-to-be-wed buddy during their drunken misadventures, then must retrace their steps in order to find him”. The focus on a lost groom due for his wedding is substantially better as a comedic conceit than simply looking for a car. (3) “What about people riffing off earlier loglines?” Another good point and I would think Max will tend to look more favorably on earlier loglines with similar iterations simply due to the earlier writer came up with the idea first.

But bottom line, let’s remember this is supposed to be a fun exercise. The opportunity to get a free script read has certainly upped the participation, which is good, but hopefully won’t create any ill will on the part of folks who don’t get selected. Even if you don’t win, you will have exercised your creative muscles, and that’s a plus for you.

UPDATE: #2: The Word Cloud Challenge is done. No more entries. I will sit down with Max Millimeter over the weekend to review each one from this post, the first post and Twitter. Hopefully Max will select 5 by Sunday night, but due to the high number of submissions, that may stretch to Monday. Thanks to all who participated in the Challenge. We may have to put on our thinking caps to come up with other variations on this as it’s a great exercise to get everyone thinking creatively and work with loglines, both critical for a screenwriter.

Here is a word cloud based on the loglines for the 78 Black List 2012 scripts:

Okay, all you clever people. Time to come up with a logline based on some of the key terms in the word cloud. For instance, take “ruthless father” and “ex-con son,” link them up with “goes to war” or “government conspiracy,” who knows what you get.

By the way, no zombies, vampires or aliens? What’s up with that?!?!

I will be continuously updating this year’s Black List writers as Franklin releases their names via Twitter [#BlackList2012]. Spec script sale links noted where relevant.

UPDATE: I’m going to have to double-check, but I think this is the entire list.

A COUNTRY OF STRANGERS by Sean Armstrong

ALL-NIGHTER by Brad Ingelsby

ALMANAC by Jason Pagan, Andrew Stark

AMERICATOWN by Ben Poole

BALLAD OF PABLO ESCOBAR, THE by Matt Aldrich

BLACK BOX by David Guggenheim

BLEEDING KANSAS by Russell Sommer, Dan Frey

BORDER COUNTRY by Jonathan Stokes (@jonathanwstokes)

BROKEN, THE by John Glosser

CHERRIES by Brian Kehoe, Jim Kehoe

CLIVE by Natasha Pincus

COMANCHERIA by Taylor Sheridan

COME AND FIND ME by Zack Whedon

CONVERSION by Marissa Jo Cerar

DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA, THE by Mark Hogan

DEVILS AT PLAY by James Dilapo

DISCIPLE PROGRAM, THE by Tyler Marceca (@TylerMarceca)

DON’T MAKE ME GO by Vera Herbert (@veraherbert)

DOPPELGANGERS by Evan Mirzai (@evan_almight), Shea Mirzai (@shea_butter)

DRAFT DAY by Rajiv Joseph, Scott Rothman (@scottmrothman)

EEL, THE by Roberto Bentivegna

EL TIGRE by Aaron Buchsbaum, Teddy Riley

EQUALIZER, THE by Richard Wenk

EX BOYFRIEND OF THE BRIDE by Matt Hausfater

EXTREMELY WICKED, SHOCKINGLY EVIL, AND VILE by Michael Werwie

FATHERS AND DAUGHTERS by Brad Desch

FAULT IN OUR STARS, THE by Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber

FINAL BROADCAST, THE by Chris Hutton, Eddie O’Keefe (@TheTeenageHead)

FLOWER by Alex McAulay

FROM NEW YORK TO FLORIDA by Austin Reynolds (@reynoldsaustin)

FUCK MARRY KILL by Neel Shah (@fneel), Alex Blagg (@alexblagg)

GEORGE by Jeff Shakoor

GLIMMER by Carter Blanchard (@cartblanch)

GOODBYE, FELIX CHESTER by Max Taxe (@taxe)

GROUND CONTROL TO MAJOR TOM by Jason Micallef (@micallefjason)

HEY, STELLA! by Tom Shephard

HIBERNATION by Will Frank, Geneva Robertson-Dworet

HOLD ON TO ME by Brad Ingelsby

HOOVERVILLE DEAD, THE by Brantley Aufill (@iseefrants)

IF THEY MOVE… KILL ‘EM! by Kel Symons

JOJO RABBIT by Taika Waititi (@TaikaWaititi)

JUDGE, THE by Bill Dubuque

KEEPING ROOM, THE by Julia Hart

KILLING SPREE, THE by Derek Elliott, Jack Donaldson

KING OF HEISTS by Will Staples

LIGHTHOUSE, THE by Eric Kirsten (@erickirsten)

MAN OF TOMORROW by Jeremy Slater (@boner_mountain)

MCCARTHY by Justin Kremer (@Kremsicles)

ME & EARL & THE DYING GIRL by Jesse Andrews (@_jesse_andrews_)

MIDNIGHT AT NOON by Nathaniel Halpern

MONSOON by Matt Ackley

MURDER CITY by Will Simmons (@willsimmons_)

ONE THAT GOT AWAY, THE by April Prosser

OUR NAME IS ADAM by T.S. Nowlin (@tsnowlin)

OUT OF STATE by Eric Pearson

OUTSKIRTS, THE by Dominique Ferarri, Suzanne Wrubel

PAPER MAN, THE by Sean O’Keefe

PENNY DREADFUL by Shane Atkinson

PESTE by Barbara Marshall

PORTLAND CONDITION, THE by Dan Cohn, Jeremy Miller

RODHAM by Young Il Kim

SAND CASTLE by Chris Roessner

SEUSS by Eyal Podell, Jonathan Stewart

SHUT IN by Christina Hodson

SOMACELL by Ashleigh Powell

STOCKHOLM, PENNSYLVANIA by Nikole Beckwith (@nikolebeckwith)

STORY OF YOUR LIFE by Eric Heisserer (@HIGHzurrer)

SURVIVALIST, THE by Stephen Fingleton (@sfingali)

SWEET VIRGINIA by Paul China, Benjamin China

TIMES SQUARE by Taylor Materne, Jake Rubin

TITANS OF PARK ROW by Mitch Akselrad

TRANSCENDENCE by Jack Paglen

UNTITLED COPS SCRIPT by Blake McCormick

WHALEMEN by Tucker Parsons

WHIPLASH by Damien Chazelle

WHO FRAMED TOMMY CALLAHAN? by Harry Kellerman

WINTER KILLS, THE by Ben Carney

WUNDERKIND by Patrick Aison

Congratulations, writers!

UPDATE #2: Here are the top 10:

#1 – 65 mentions. DRAFT DAY by Rajiv Joseph, Scott Rothman

#2 – 43 mentions. A COUNTRY OF STRANGERS by Sean Armstrong

#2 – 43 mentions. SEUSS by Eyal Podell, Jonathan Stewart

#4 – 39 mentions. RODHAM by Young Il Kim

#5 – 35 mentions. STORY OF YOUR LIFE by Eric Heisserer

#6 – 33 mentions. WUNDERKIND by Patrick Aison

#7 – 31 mentions. EXTREMELY WICKED, SHOCKINGLY EVIL, AND VILE by Michael Werwie

#8 – 29 mentions. GLIMMER by Carter Blanchard

#8 – 29 mentions. ME & EARL & THE DYING GIRL by Jesse Andrews

#10 – 28 mentions. DEVILS AT PLAY by James DiLapo

One year ago, Go Into The Story became the official Screenwriting Blog of the Black List. As part of the celebration this week, Franklin Leonard kindly offered to answer some questions, many provided by GITS readers. Today another question:

Peering into your crystal ball, what trends do you see emerging in the movie business over the next decade?

A radical transformation in the way aspiring screenwriters get their material to industry professionals… but, I may be getting ahead of myself.

Trends I feel pretty confident about:

1. Greater international focus. International box office is Hollywood’s growth sector.  In the last five years, international box office in US dollars grew 35% (from $16.4BN to $22.4BN) while domestic box office has been largely stagnant, growing only 6%.  Much of this growth is coming from countries with growing economies and burgeoning middle classes – Russia, Mexico, Brazil, China – who now have more time and, more importantly, money to spend on leisure activities like pay for movies.  It’s only natural that the industry will consider and cater to those audiences.  Expect to see more globe trotting plotlines, actors from those countries, possibly even national myths, legends, and fairy tales that can be adapted into big budget blockbusters, and less content that may offend the political sensibilities of those countries (and, more relevantly their governments.)  Also, maybe fewer comedies though I’d argue that the international success of the HANGOVER franchise and TED suggests that there’s real money internationally in those that don’t worry too much about America’s tendencies toward the puritanical.

2. More experimentation with windowing.  At some point in the next ten years, probably in the next two, a studio is going to do what Universal almost did with their release of Tower Heist last year: make a major release – probably a comedy – available for audiences to stream to their homes on the same night it opens in theaters. I have no idea what the response will be from audiences, but I believe it will be a critical moment in how our industry evolves amidst the current technological maelstrom.

3. More bigger movies, more smaller movies. Rising costs and largely flat domestic revenue means that making movies is an increasingly risky financial proposition.  Expect the industry to respond to that risk by increasingly limiting their bets to “all-in” big ones or very responsible small ones.  Increasingly Hollywood is going to be dominated by two kinds of movies: 1. Huge budget summer blockbusters where the financier (usually a studio) can reasonably hope that there’s a billion dollars worth of box office on the other end of their several hundred million dollar investment in production and marketing. 2. Movies that are made for the smallest budget reasonably possible, often for a niche audience (horror fans, independent film fans, the “urban” audience), with the reasonable hope that moderate success will turn a small profit and crossover success will yield a huge one.

4. More big budget adaptations of stories you already know. Of the top grossing 35 films of the last 15 years, all but two were either sequels or adaptations of stories most people already knew when they went into the theater. (The two are AVATAR and FINDING NEMO.) Need I say more?

5. More smaller movies, period. Never has it been less expensive to make a movie. If you have a smartphone with a video camera and a halfway decent computer, you have all the tools you need.  Whether it’s a good movie is entirely up to you and I’m not naive enough to think that all that many of those movies will be terribly strong, but the fact is simple: many more people today have the resources at their disposal to make a movie than ever before.

6. More varied sources of film financing. We’re seeing this everywhere, largely supported by the internet.  Kickstarter and Indiegogo are extraordinary as a source for filmmakers to raise money for their projects, and Slated.com is a new venue I’m incredibly excited about for films whose budgets may be slightly outside of what one could reasonably expect to raise by crowdsourcing.

7. Increased importance of filmmakers and actors’ direct relationship with their fans. Film financiers are taking note of the extent to which actors and directors can motivate their fans to get off their couches and go see their movies.  Motivated fans equal increased box office and decreased risk.  This is also true for independent filmmakers who may be crowdsourcing all or part of their financing: if you’ve got a consistent community of fans who like your movies, it’s a lot easier to go them and ask them for money to make the next one, and a lot more likely they’re going to give it to you.

If you have a question for Franklin, please post in comments. Hopefully he can get to it. If not, I’ll be happy to take a crack at it.

One year ago, Go Into The Story became the official Screenwriting Blog of the Black List. As part of the celebration this week, Franklin Leonard kindly offered to answer some questions, many provided by GITS readers. Today two more Q&A’s:

One of the most significant changes in the last 10-15 years in Hollywood movie acquisition and development circles is the increase of literary managers. How has that development impacted the business?

I came of age professionally in Hollywood after the proliferation of managers had already begun, so it’s difficult for me to compare it to the days when there weren’t very many. As in any profession, there are good ones, and there are bad ones.  The good ones support their clients, as rigorous editors, developers, and interrogators of their material, as therapists and friends, and as advocates to the Hollywood community.  The bad ones give terrible notes, insert themselves where they’re not welcome and not helpful, and ruin their clients’ good names by association, and then ask for 15% of their clients hard earned money.  There are more of both now than there were when I started.

When you read a screenplay, what elements are you looking for that let you know this is a story by a professional screenwriter?

I don’t know that there’s a difference between the writing of a professional screenwriter and a non-professional screenwriter except that the former has gotten paid to write a screenplay at some point in the past. I’ve read great screenplays by writers who have never written a screenplay before and I’ve read terrible screenplays by writers who have been doing it professionally for decades.

I’m going to paraphrase our President (who I happen to think is an excellent writer and public speaker though to my knowledge he’s never written a screenplay) to answer this: “A great writer thinks three to four sentences ahead of the sentence she’s writing.” I think this is true for screenplays as well.

Great screenplays read as though the writer has thought of everything and knows they’ve thought of everything. They know on page one where they’re going to be on page thirty, on page sixty, on page one twenty, and the writing on each of those pages – all of it: the images, the turns of phrase, the character description – exists in service of telling a story that’s going to elicit an emotional reaction whether that be laughter, sadness, exhiliration, inspiration, or fear or some combination of all of them.

If you have a question for Franklin, please post in comments. Hopefully he can get to it. If not, I’ll be happy to take a crack at it.