The Crow 2037 (Ghosts #4 of 5)

Genre: Action/Drama/Comic Book Adaptation

Premise: A young boy and his mother are murdered by a dark priest, who is part of The Fallen One. The Crow returns the kid's spirit to Earth. The boy forgets these events, becomes a bounty and sets out to avenge his mother's death.

About: Rob Zombie basically wrote this thing as a writing sample for House of 1000 Corpses, and then after 18 months on the project bailed because he was unhappy with the little amount of progress made on the film. This would be the third part of The Crow trilogy, but doesn't really carry along The Crow story line.

Writer: Rob Zombie (who in 1997 didn't have any film credits, but went on to do House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and a remake of Halloween)

Now I love comics, but I don't know all that much about The Crow. other than it's about a person who is dead coming back to the living, which I guess would kind of make them the same thing as a ghost. Of course we all know that odd, morbid detail that Brandon Lee was killed on the set of the original film. So I was expecting some sort of an origin story. I mean, it's a comic book story and it has a date in it. That's normally a good sign of something pretty faithful to a comic book storyline.

Instead, what we're presented with in The Crow is a secondary story line about this kid who becomes a bounty hunter and little to no reference about The Crow. Turns out the people who were going to produce this script also felt the same, and wanted to take the story out of a crow context. So that's pretty disappointing. It's like watching Cyclops: The Movie and finding out it revolved around Gambit. (Actually that'd probably be more awesome because I love both of those characters).

Once you get back this stumbling block, the script is actually pretty comparable to the type of things I've previously read by Rob Zombie: strange, dark, shocking visuals strung together in a pretty conventional plot arch that occasionally throws a surprise twist or two with dialogue that's very plain except for its dark and sarcastic tone. The problem with this whole script is that it isn't terrible, but due to it not being about The Crow, it really isn't that interesting or unique a take. I mean a bounty hunter back from the dead and characters who don't really engage one another so much as they say "cool things". It's not a film so much as a comic written as a screenplay.

So really. (And this statement becomes increasingly more true as the industry turns to
adaptations of successful material.) Why do I want to watch a surreal action film about second string comic book figures from an obscure graphic novel? I don't know. There really isn't anything memorable to the script, and it was additionally frustrating because I kept waiting for The Crow to become a main figure. Instead, stifled lines and a maudlin story plot do not make a film. Or atl east one I want to go see.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: The worst part of this script, and it's not a bad script, just not a great one by any stretch of the imagination, is the film makes certain promises in the title and in the genre. It ends up coming through on neither of them. The point being that an audience gains certain expectations of

Isla Prospect: There really aren't any female roles in this thing. At all. So I don't know who you'd cast Isla as, if anyone.

Script Link: This is hard to track down. Email if interested.

Ghost (Ghosts #3 of 5)

GENRE: Some people bill this as a comedy? That’s ridiculous. It’s a Drama.

PREMISE: On a date with his girlfriend Molly, Sam Wheat is murdered by a thug who is actually working together with Sam’s friend, Carl, to obtain money from a bank account where Sam works. Sam becomes a ghost and is not seen by most folks. He tries to warn Molly about Carl, but she refuses to listen. So Sam relies on a psychic, Oda Mae Brown, to try and save Molly’s life.

ABOUT: Before Stuart Little 2, there was a time when Bruce Joel Rubin was a very hot commodity. Heck, his films Jacob’s Ladder and Ghost were filmed simultaneously in New York. Even though, Ghost had been in development for years. Allegedly, Hollywood had a stigma against ghost films. They didn’t do great numbers, and as a result it was trouble getting one produced. Many actors (Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, etc.) turned down the role of Sam because it wasn’t a deep one. And Ghost had a series of oddball directors attached like Milos Foreman who wanted to change the ending of "Ghost" so that the heroine would jump out of a window to commit suicide to join her dead boyfriend in the hereafter. (Eventually the project was directed by Jerry Zucker, who had done the spoof Airplane). It is a small intimate film that took time to get made, and Rubin already had a few small credits to help push the project along.

WRITERS: Bruce Joel Rubin (Jacob’s Ladder, My Life)

I’ve never seen the first few minutes of this film, but have seen everything else. And it’s hard for me to get behind because the film feels so dated now and I don’t really like Demi Moore as an actress. There’s something very off putting about her. But, the ending is always strong. And when Carl is killed and dragged to hell by demons, it’s definitely a creepy. So it was a good chance to study Ghost as a story removed from the film. And while there are definitely problems here (many of them: implausible plot turns, a flat underdeveloped central character, bad guys I don’t understand, an unchallenged relationship between Sam and Molly), there’s a definite core of something strong here.

There’s several twists in this story that could never happen today. Oda Mae manages to infiltrate a security system by just being nice and personal, which would be impossible to do noawadays. But even larger then that, Sam Wheat doesn’t have a transformation. He’s the same person all along and really isn’t all that transformed by the ending of the film. (It’s funny Rubin would go on to write My Life next, which has a great character progression). So Sam plays very long and very flat. And as a result, I don’t know if I liked or enjoyed him as a character. Although, I paid attention to him because it was interesting to see a ghost aware he’s a ghost moving around in a living world. And the bad guys who chase Sam are completely confusing. I’m not sure why they killed Sam. I’m not sure how they’re making money. I guess it involves a wire transfer, but besides that it’s pretty goofy. And Sam and Molly have this weird relationship where their love isn’t awe inspiring and it isn’t awful. It’s just an ordinary romance, which is blah.

I read a synopsis of the film, and it was interesting to note where a couple story revisions were made which seem to revise some of these problems: the bad guys are a little bit more unified, Carl holds Molly hostage at the end and challenges Sam (which I guess adds tension, but just sounds goofy), at the start of the film Sam won’t tell Molly he loves her which makes Sam’s ghostliness all the more moving. I think, the largest problem that remains throughout this thing is Molly is flat, Sam is flat, and their romance is flat so they don’t come off as very vivid characters.

So I think the story is awesome. Definite high concept. Has classic written all over it. But, I can’t help but feel Bruce Joel Rubin was trying to fit all these characters into the story he’d already written in his mind rather than vice versa so he ended up trying to force characters into the plot and some came off flat. Besides, these slip ups, I like Ghost.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

DAILY TIP: It’s not what a character says, it’s what they do. Oda Mae is always talking about how much she dislikes Sam, but we all know they’re actually friends because they continue to stick around and help one another. Although this tension provides a good deal of tension throughout the script, the conflict between Oda Mae and Sam is particularly awesome at the end when we realize these two characters in fact really have loved and respected one another all along.

ISLA PROSPECT: It’s hard with classic films to picture anybody outside of the actors who originally portrayed the roles. Also, I think this would be a hard role for Isla because there aren’t that many comedic chances, but rather Ghost is a straight up drama.

LINK: IMSDB has an early draft, but I read one a bit earlier than that.

STIR OF ECHOES (Early Draft) (Ghost #2 of 5)

GENRE: Supernatural Thriller (Not Horror, It's Not Necessarily Scary as Much as Eerie)

PREMISE: Tom, a lineman, is married with a young boy. He hangs out with old time pals in Chicago. At a party, he gets hypnotized and goes into a trance. That night, he sees violent scenes and a young woman's ghost. Tom's son is also quasi psychic. Only the boy is calm and collected, while Tom is agitated by his new skills. As Tom learns of the ghost's story, he begins a hunt to find her body that places his whole family in harm's way.

ABOUT: This is one of the first films directed by David Koepp. It was a pretty straight forward adaptation from the Matheson novel. Besides that I've scoured Variety but can't really find a trace or mention about the development process of this script. Also, I read that Andrew Kevin Walker did some uncredited doctoring on this script, and in lieu of formal recognition is given a special thanks in the credits.

WRITERS: David Koepp (Panic Room, Spiderman, Mission Impossible, and Jurassic Park)adapted the script from a novel by the Grand Daddy of Good Horror, Richard Matheson (I Am Legend, What Dreams May Come, Somewhere in Time)

Stir of Echoes is another one of those films of which I only ever caught the tail end. There's a scene where a ghoul is discovered in Tom's basement. It's definitely chilling. And the effects are awe inspiring. But, that being said, when I actually had the time to experience the whole story, I was left with a lackluster experience. Now before any of you start trying to convince me otherwise "But Joe it's one of the best undiscovered horror films of the late 90's".

Let me tell you why. The reason is two fold. A) I don't like the main character. He's not funny. He has no aspirations. He has no real drive. He's content being a hick. And, while that may be plenty cool for some folks, and normally I enjoy working class heroes, but this guy is cardboard. He has no inner personality. As such I imagine Kevin Bacon was a pretty good choice for that type of a role, but I really can't get invested in a character like that. Furthermore B) The plot is goofy. It's either cliche at times and I've seen it over and over before: the man must discover the dead woman's secret (Isn't that the premise of that George C. Scott film The Haunting?) or the plot is surpentine and convoluted. Then there's the fact that Tom's son is clairvoyante and that's both cliched and convoluted. I know Matheson was the driving force behind this thing. And, that Stephen King in turn probably ripped off Matheson in The Shining. But, I can't help but feel that Stir of Echoes is a little tired that way. And, Matheson is always a very tone driven author so if you don't get his character tone right, it's understandable how you could end up with relatively flat character personalities. So I guess without the creepy tone or special effects, the story is pretty flat, which was also problematic in Manhattan Ghost Story. In tales about ghosts, the story is always heavily dependant on atmosphere. And in bland script format, it's nearly impossible to pick up on this stuff. So I'll give Stir of Echoes the praise that I'm sure when translated to celluloid the experience is a much more enjoyable one.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: Horror is a fine combination of plot and tone. And tone on the page, unlike in prose, can be very hard to capture particularly when one is working in as refined a structure as horror. So it's a losing race alot of the time in terms of capturing a script reader when you're writing a tone heavy horror picture. Stir of Echoes, Manhattan Ghost Story.

Isla Prospect: The only real female role is as the ghost (or Tom's wife, a pretty bland role). And Isla would be an interesting choice as a spirit, but it'd probably creep me out about her forever.

Script Link: All over the net


Coming up later this week, we'll have a big budget romance film from the 90's, a sci fi ghost tale, followed up by a surprise. It's gonna be a blast.

Manhattan Ghost Story (Ghost #1 of 5)

GENRE: Victorian Ghost Story / Tale of the Macabre

PREMISE: A photographer goes to New York City with the hopes of beginning a collection that’ll focus on loneliness. But New York City is one weird place. Screaming Vietnam Vets. A creepy kid selling puppies. Some man follow him. He’s staying temporarily at his friend’s apartment. He thought it’d be empty, but a woman’s living there. And the two begin a very torrid love affair. But there’s one catch, the woman’s a ghost. And so are all the weird folk. Furthermore, the woman’s ex is out to harm the two because murderous jealousy keeps him from fading into a ghost. And the woman is attached to the photographer. There’s a chase through an apartment building which houses the memories of the photographer and his lover. And ultimately (I’m going to ruin this because odds are the script will never be filmed) the photographer is a ghost too.

ABOUT: This thing sort of got knocked out of the running by the onslaught of ghost stories that came out in the mid to late 90’s (The Sixth Sense, Stir of Echoes, etc). And that’s really a shame because with a director who could have picked up on the dark, moody tone of Manhattan Ghost Story, this would have been a better ghost tale than any of them. The script is actually an adaptation of a novel by T.M. Wright (who has written a ton of horror novels and won a Bram Stoker award) by Ron Bass and sold for $2 million. Manhattan Ghost Story went into Development Hell and has had Sharon Stone and Julia Roberts attached at various times to act, and Wayne Wang (Because of Winn-Dixie, Maid in Manhattan) to direct.

WRITERS: Novel by T.M. Wright, Script by Ron Bass (who has done a ton of stuff…Rain Man, Step Mom, Waiting to Exhale, My Best Friend's Wedding, and the similar in tone, What Dreams May Come)

I read this script about two months ago. And, I didn’t review Manhattan Ghost Story then because I had no idea what I’d say about the story. Now, I’m still not sure. But I think that’s part of the script’s charm. Like Blade Runner or Return of the Jedi, it may not be perfect (shoot, maybe not even close). But Manhattan Ghost Story is dark, sleek and incredibly rich in tone. It’s not scary, it’s eerie. And if you don’t really understand the difference, this script will divide them for you. If it had been scary, I wouldn’t have included it in this week’s Ghost theme.

The story is very slow and plodding. A 120 plus page script. And that always means stuff could have been trimmed. It’s hard because the protagonist doesn’t really have a ready goal or objective until he falls in love with this ghost woman a good chunk through the script which means you’re forced to slow down and really ponder on what lines and dialogue mean. Now in an actual film, the director can find ways to cheat this until the story kicks in. But on the page, this means a very, very slow lead in.

Actually, I’ll be entirely honest, there’s some interesting stuff in the middle. A man in love with a ghost woman, which is kind of like Ghost in reverse. But okay, I’ll play your game. Then a jealous ghost boyfriend who focuses on the woman to prevent from “fading” out into oblivion. (Which is really convoluted, and I didn’t buy it. It’s a technique mainly just to put a bad guy in this thing and make him threatening).

But the real golden part to Manhattan Ghost Story, which elevates it to brilliant comes in the last 30 pages when the photographer is chased through a building which alters itself in terms of time and space dimensions to reveal images from his (and his lover’s) past. I am absolutely in love with any script that can utilize an apartment building in a way we haven’t seen them before (and as someone who has spent so much time in them during the last few years, I guess this is what I get). So that’s great and I’ll give high ratings any day of the week for that. I wish somebody would either film this script, or steal this idea, just to utilize this element.

But that’s Manhattan Ghost Story for you. A few brilliant ideas. A slow moving plot until the end. A couple characters I couldn’t get behind because the thing is so plodding. And a ghost story that isn’t really a ghost story because it’s not scary. This is a good script that with some punching up could have very well been amazing.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
[X] - Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: Maximize locations. Not only does it save budget, if you can maximize a location odds are you're using it in an original way. And, odds are also you've thought of something original to watch on screen. The idea of an apartment building that houses different memories of the past is one such example. Of course, intergrating this idea into your film is a whole other challenge. But, that's a whole other what I learned section.

Isla Prospect: I'd like to see Isla for once in a non-chick flick romance like Ghost Story. Now I'm not saying this is the film, but I'm saying it'd a good genre to get some props in as opposed to this goofy Cookie Queen / Wedding Crashers streak she's currently on.

Script Link: I have a copy and will email it to you if interested.

Ghosts (New Years)

I hate New Years. There. I said it. It's a pointless holiday without presents, costumes, or a very great purpose. And, sooner or later, they start playing that Auld Lang Sye and I just get agitated because I find myself growing nostalgic. Why do any of it? What's to gain? As Billy Crystal says in "When Harry Meet Sally"..."Does that mean we should forget old acquaintances or does it mean if we happen to forget them we should remember them, which is not possible because we already forgot them!?" Inevitably at some point during this holiday, I find myself sitting alone with a drink contemplating these old acquaintances and really what better way to end out 2009 on Hunting for Isla than with a series of scripts about Ghosts. Now I'm talking unproduced ghosts, famous early drafts of ghost movies, a finished film or two and maybe even a comic book if I get around to it. Now to be more precise, I'm only going to be looking at scripts where A) It's a Drama, which means no horror B) Ghosts visit earlier times, so no quasi ghosts .... and C) Nothing scary. Ghosts in a warning/mentor/guardian light instead.

Die Hard (ACTION XMAS #5 of 5)

Yes. That's right. We even do reviews on Christmas on Hunting for Isla Fisher.

GENRE: Action / Blockbuster

PREMISE: Without much help from the FBI or LAPD, a New York City cop infiltrates a skyscraper and manages to rescue a handful of hostages, including the cop's estranged wife, held captive by terrorists.

ABOUT: Die Hard was originally a novel written by Roderick Thorp called Nothing Lasts Forever. The film is a pretty faithful adaptation, but makes several of the characters foreign (the bad German and Japanese businessmen) rather than American. The script was written by Jeb Stuart(his first big credit, later did Another 48 Hrs and Indy and the Crystal Skull) and Stephen de Souza (who at this point had done 48 Hours and The Running Man).

WRITER: Novel by Roderick Thorp, Script by Stephen de Souza and Jeb Stuart

Die Hard is one of the quickest reads I've ever had in my life. And that's funny because I don't remember it being that quick a watch. This thing is a blockbuster if there ever were one. But the problem with Die Hard is the script is almost a tad too formulaic: the structure is all predictable, there is a cop who not very dramatically doubts Willis is really a cop, the dialogue moves very flat and doesn't have that much oomph at all. The thing has an original setting and the action pieces are really what make the film. Who can't recall Bruce Willis stepping on the broken glass when they think of Die Hard?
But, cut Die Hard for meaning or purpose and you'll find absolutely nothing. Although, I admit to being a little fond to the estranged relationship Willis has with his wife where things aren't necessarily bad, she's just living on the other side of the country to pursue her job. As a result, the only real subjective framework in which to view this puppy is as a thriller. And as a thriller, the thing really starts to lag in the second half as McClane plods along his way to capture the terrorists.
And how does Die Hard revolve around Christmas? It doesn't really, other than giving a few stray Christmas images and a few musical cues. Most action movies don't seem to have much of a use for Christmas, though. So it's often a pointless setting.


Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: There is this great scene I always am amazed to read in Die Hard. John McClane meets the terrorist leads Han Gruber. Hans pretends to be a good guy, and McClane goes so far as to even give him a gun. There's a similar scene in Michael Mann's Heat where DeNiro meets the Pacino on non confrontational terms. It's also visible in De Palma's The Untouchables. If you can write a scene where the good guy confronts the bad guy in anonymous but confrontational manner, the audience will be riveted because the drama is so thick and the words/looks so loaded you could cut them with a butter knife.

Isla Prospect: No. The only main female role is McClane's wife, and from how she reads one doesn't expect her to be a very attractive character.

Script Link: The production draft is all over Google. Try the big sites.

Lethal Weapon (Action XMAS #4 of 5)

Genre: Action / Thriller / Noir / Black Comedy

Premise: Two cops: one who just turned 50 and another one who is suicidal after his wife's death in a car crash, become partners. They kill people, survive a desert shootout, jump off buildings, play with all kinds of weapons, rescue Glover's kidnapped daughter, endure electric shock torture, and emerge heroes.

About: Shane Black who had recently graduated from UCLA wrote the screenplay in 1985 when he was just 24 years old. His agent sent the script to Joel Silver, who brought the script to Warner Brothers the next year. The script sold for $250,00 Leonard Nimoy was considered but was busy on Three Men and A Baby, so Richard Donner was selected.

Writer: Shane Black

It'd be real easy to talk about how brilliant this thing is. Nearly every book on screenwriting has some reference to how Lethal Weapon is a masterwork of film. But, I'm going to try my best and highlight two elements of this film that don't get mentioned alot in this script A) What's the original draft like? and B) What are the weakness of Lethal Weapon as a story? But, before I start digging my claws into these questions, Lethal Weapon is one of my all time favorite action movies: dark, funny, moving, original characters. And the thing has a pace like a runaway train.

The original script has most of the scenes and movement of the original film. But, probably the biggest difference is that neither Briggs nor Murphy are revealed to be as damaged: not so much emphasis on the suicidal element for Briggs or as many suggestions Murphy is really aged. These elements are definitely set up, but Gibson and Glover seem to give many more visual cues than are planted. The other thing is that Gibson is alot more violent. And, it's perhaps a little bit harder to see him as a good guy because he beats up a group of guys who are torturing a dog.

The weakest part of Lethal Weapon as a film is it's so one note. None of the characters are very conflicted in terms of behavior, moral sides, or who supports who. And as a result, this story is insanely predictable, and Gibson's unhingedness is the most interesting part. But, I don't think we're afraid afraid Gibson is going to die during the film. So there's no depth to this film.

But, I mean, what can I really say? Lethal Weapon is classic. There really isn't an over riding reason to set this on Christmas much like The Long Kiss Goodnight. But, what happens that's awesome is it's set in California, in non-winter scenes which are interspliced with holiday songs and decorations so it's a cool contrast. And because I can't really think of another film that does this, Lethal Weapon makes pretty awesome use of the XMAS setting.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
[X] - Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

What I Learned: Shane Black writes terrific dialogue. But, one of the things that makes it terrific is he's always making these "baby" structures in which to have characters speak. Small games, drug deals, etc. Not to mention throughout Lethal Weapon, each scenes either gives the story an obviously positive or negative twist. So the moral is, an audience will have an easier time going along with you if you can make dialogue that seems to have some form of overarching reason rather than stray asides.

Isla Prospect: No. There's not really any female roles in this thing, though.

Script Link: The production draft is all over Google. Try the big sites.

Batman Returns / Batman II (Action XMAS #3 of 5)

Genre: Comic Book Blockbuster

Premise: After his release from prison, the Penguin (who suspiciously doesn’t have the Cobblepot name he does in the comics) teams up with Catwoman to take over Gotham and destroy Batman. Also, Robin makes an appearance towards the end of the second act and Vicki Gale, the love interest from the first film, is still around.

About: This version was promptly dropped and Hamm booted from the project. The Warners brass were particularly unhappy with how Hamm hadn’t given The Penguin an overarching motive. This motive eventually became that because as a baby The Penguin was put down river like Moses, he now vowed to kill all of Gotham’s first born sons.

Writer: Sam Hamm (who started off on one of my favorites Never Cry Wolf before sliding off into Planet of the Apes, Monkeybone, a Watchmen draft, and this crap) took sole screenwriting credit on the first draft. He was soon replace by Daniel Waters (Heathers) who had sole screenwriting credit. Waters in key was then doctored by Wesley Strick (Scorsese’s Cape Fear)

Sam Hamm seems to have made a screenwriting career off of misunderstanding the fictional creations of other people. Never Wolf was a good script, but it’s very different than the original novel. Then Watchmen. Then Planet of the Apes. Now Batman II. Shoot, he doesn’t even give the characters the same names they have in the comics.

Not to mention there aren’t any origin stories. The Penguin and Cat Woman just appear on the scene. Without a further word of explanation. Then they’re developed as these one note characters: The Penguin is obsessed with birds and has none of the weird or creepy elements he had in the eventual Batman Returns film, and Cat Woman is also a sex fiend and walks around spouting pick up lines. It’s all pretty silly. And then Robin is brought in late in the second act. Robin also doesn’t have an origin story. And is said to be Batman’s girlfriend’s nephew. Is this some Robin I never knew of? Also, if you’re bringing in somebody as important to the Batman series as Robin, why in the world would you wait until late in the second act? Not to mention Bruce Wayne is depicted as this festive guy who when we first meet him is in the midst of holiday cheer with his butler and his girlfriend. A total misstep in terms of tone, if you ask me. Bruce Wayne is dark and moody. That’s his whole thing.

You know what else I hate about this thing? Sam Hamm completely makes this ridiculous ending that rips apart a lot of the stuff we hold as guidelines of the Batman universe: the Penguin and Catwoman break into Bruce Wayne’s mansion and attack Bruce and his friends, Bruce’s identity is revealed as Batman, Alfred the Butler is wounded by them, Catwoman tries to slit her own throat with her claws, and Batman has a showdown with the Penguin where Bruce summons hundreds of tiny Bats and unleashes them on the Penguin. Did Sam Hamm ever read the comic? Does he know how many things are just plain weird about that? A) Never real Bruce’s identity, B) Nobody ever goes in the mansion, C) Batman can summon Bats now? How does he do that? I could go on. I won’t.

But, this script reads like it has no point. Like there’s no thrust to it. Without a plan, The Penguin and Catwoman are bad guys without a reason. Without a large plot to stop chaos, Batman is just running around fighting minor crimes. (The whole thing opens with a 10 page scene in which Batman stops and literally wraps up some hoodlums dressed in Christmas garb). And I mean, essentially without widespread chaos and trouble, Batman becomes a generic action movie whose characters happen to be the super heroes we know and love. And is that enough? No, I don’t think so.

And Christmas in this script? Well, the only point Sam Hamm has is that it made sense production wise (they were shooting on the same sets as the first film) and at the end he uses some completely retarded line by Vicki about how they don’t need presents, they have one another and that is more than enough. Really? What is this, the Christmas special of Leave It To Beaver?

You know, originally I was going to review the Production Draft of Batman Returns and give it a mediocre review. But then I read this thing, and now Batman Returns looks like a glowing jewel of the Nile to me.
[X] - Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)
What I Learned: One of my very favorite parts of all comics are origin stories that tell how characters cam to be, how they set up their plans, and how they’re going to go about taking over the world. Without origin stories, it’s like skipping the first act of a tale and then expecting the audience to care about things. Without showing Robin’s parents murdered, the Penguin horribly warped psychologically, or how Catwoman nearly died and started wearing the spandex, Hamm is essentially jumping the gun on the story. And when the script has ballooned out to 129 pages, I don’t exactly think he was pressed for time.

Isla Prospect: She could do Cat Woman? Funny, sexy, seductive. But definitely not this one. Or in Cat Woman. But maybe one day if somebody wrote a decent film about Cat Woman instead of this drivel.

Script Link: The IMSDB has this. Although, I managed to secure an actual PDF which comes complete with a snappy cover that reads Batman II.

The Long Kiss Goodnight (Action XMAS #2 of 5)

Genre: Action-Adventure with traces of comedy

Premise: Sam Caine is a house mom and amnesia. She leads a quiet life until she's attacked by a mugger and dispenses him with lethal force. She hires a private investigator named Henessey to help figure out her past. Turns out Sam Caine is really Charly, a CIA counter assassin, and along with Henessey she sets out to thwart a mission which involves the kidnapping of her daughter.

About: The script was the third, and highest point of Shane Black's sold specs during his reign in the nineties. $125,000 for Lethal Weapon, $1.75 million for The Last Boy Scout, and finally $4 million for The Long Kiss Goodnight. $4 million. That's close to the all time screenwriting record. Sadly, this script has a reputation as the one that finally broke Black's heart about the industry and sent him into a near decade of low visibility.

Writer: Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout, and Monster Squad at this point) has sold screenwriting credit. It would be his last film until Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang.

There's a series of mediocre action blockbusters from the mid-nineties which I have a fondness for because I watched them with my dad: The Rock, Con Air, and The Long Kiss Goodnight. I caught this film on cable a year or two ago, and watched a good chunk of it. And, it's not bad. Long Kiss is no Cut Throat Island. But, it has a reputation as having been so different than Shane Black's original version. I wanted to see what the real story was. I wasn't able to get my hands on the original draft, but I did locate a second draft of the film. And in all honesty, it really isn't all that different from what ended up on the screen.

There is absolutely no substance behind this story. It's a sequence of animated, comic book influenced sequences which if you cut them for meaning bleed absolutely nothing. And that from the man who wrote the crazy cop circular existentialist dialogue of Lethal Weapon. I have no idea how Sam Caine feels about her past life. Or what her major problem is with this one. So when she discovers she's a spy and commits to finding out what's going on, there is nothing whatsoever to commit to in terms of character or expectations. So why are we watching this? Well, for the action sequences. Of course.

Only the action of this script is a long, circular winding snake of a tale and it even goes so far as to suspend belief in reality over multiple occasions (like the characters out running a fire ball). There's nothing we really haven't seen her in terms of action before, and it's not escalating to anything larger. Just like a series of random comic book mishaps. And really, a Hollywood film that does not make.

Now don't get me wrong, there's plenty of snappy dialogue thrown in. But it's not intended to reveal character. Light quips. Characters digging into one another. But Henessey/Charly have a much more artifical uncomplicated relationship as oppposed to Briggs/Murphy which is essentially the whole reason Lethal Weapon works as a film. We commit the characters. This thing, however, reads like it was written to fool a Hollywood reader and slip past the gates with just enough charm to get sold, but never really enough power to make a good film.

And as if you didn't see it coming, although The Long Kiss Goodnight takes place during Christmas (with Sam Caine playing Ms. Clause in the beginning) there really is absolutely no reason for this film to take place during Christmas and it makes no effort to craft a message from that. It's just nothing more than a story with some action pieces set in the winter. So I'm really sorry that Shane Black left the industry, but I highly doubt this script got turned to completely meaningless drivel with one draft. So I'm going to go out on another ledge here and say perhaps it's more likely that Shane Black left Hollywood because of his own personal reasons, and although this film was directed by Renny Harlin (Cut Throat Island, Cliffhanger, need I say more?) it wasn't shining even in early draft form.

What I Learned: I can honestly say I learned nothing from this script. Nothing positive at least. It is a shame that a screenwriter as talented as Shane Black could produce this drivel.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospect: No. But. I want to take a moment of silence in respect to Geena Davis who was in such great films as The Accidental Tourist, The Fly, Tootsie, and League of Their Own before being subject to crap like this, Cut Throat Island, Speechless and Stuart Little.

Script Link: I have a copy I acquired which is an early draft, but there are later version to be found on numerous sites across the web.

Gremlins - 2nd Draft (ACTION XMAS #1 of 5)

Genre: Black Comedy / Horror (at least in these early drafts)

Premise: Billy, a young boy aspiring to be a novelist, is given a pet Mogwai by his wacky inventor father, who acquired the animal during a trip the orient. Unlike animal you've ever seen, the Gremlins are nocturnal and multiply in number when wet. They proceed to go crazy, attack Billy's dog and killing his mother so Billy teams up with Terry, the girl he likes, and another friend to defend the town against The Gremlins.

About: There are a movement in the late 80's towards Comedy/Horror films. This cannon includes Ghostbusters (released the same weekend as Gremlins) but also Beetlejuice, Fright Night, The Burbs. I guess you could say it started with the Munsters and Addams Family or Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, but this was a blockbuster genre in the late 80's. So that's the market Gremlins was nicheing itself towards. Chris Columbus based the story around heading mice in his apartment late at night, and originally just constructed the piece as a sample of his writing. But then, Speilberg caught onto it. And the rest is history.

Writer: Chris Columbus (who was a boy wonder with one filmed script, Reckless, to date at the ripe old age of 24) got sole screenwriting credit. But that to me, seems more like Spielberg consciously choosing to take his name off the project. There are definitely certain things that happened in the script's revision that if Spielberg didn't directly alter, the inclusion of Walt Disney films/certains touches that made everything cuter/the wacky inventions.

I used to feel alot of jealousy towards Chris Columbus. He's like the wonderkind of screenwriters. Had a film produced by the time he was a junior at NYU. And was writing Gremlins while living on Spielberg's couch soon after. And the thing is, Gremlins is a great film. Original. High concept. Fun. I love the feel to it. But, reading this original draft was very enheartening because I realized essentially what Columbus had written was a monster movie. And it's not a very wonderful monster movie. Totally conventional in terms of plot structure (monsters unleashed, not a threat, monsters are a threat, must stop monsters) and while written as a sample script, there really aren't that mean great speeches or lines. Alot of the characters (Billy as an artists, the father's inventions, the aspiring bank manager character, Terry's playfullness) aren't hyped up here that much. So the whole thing comes off pretty flat.

And thank God Gremlins became a softer film because as a dark script this thing is really unsettling. It's like reading an unproduced script where you find out ET is actually a serial killer. Spielberg's idea to change Mogwai to a completely good guy, and then have another completely bad Gremlin basically made this film. It's way too difficult to sympathize with a character and then watch them alter into a mother-killing dog-nibbling person. And then, these scenes aren't even that particularly amusing in a black comedy sense (the one exception being a scene at the Gremlins-raided McDonalds where The Gremlins feed on the customers and don't touch the hamburgers.

But this script, basically has the same problem the original does. I love the set up, and it's cool watching the Gremlins start to take everything over. But the scenes where the Gremlins have taken over and Billy must defend himself again them are really boring. There are nice moments sure, but it's action in a way that I'm not really that riveted and pretty much always tune out. And Billy in this script is alot dorkier and harder to believe as a developed character. Rather than paint him as a passive kid who wants to be an artist, Columbus writes Billy as an aspiring novelist which isn't nearly as fun or entertaining on the screen.

Christmas in Gremlins is just a holiday. By that, I mean it provides the movie with a little bit more concrete grounding. It's cool to watch the Gremlins take over particularly on Christmas. And it makes for a few opening scenes where people are displayed in the midst of holiday activity. But, in terms of trying to provide a meaning, I guess the script also suggests that unexpected gifts can have disastrous consequences, which is a pretty Twilight Zone inspired idea. So all negative aspects, Gremlins, as Spielberg infuenced it and not in original draft, is probably my all time favorite Christmas movie.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Isla is too old for all these roles. Besides, Phoebe Cates did a really good job in this film so I'll let her keep the role.

What I Learned: Asking an audience to switch opinions on a characters and dislike someone they've liked or like someone they've hated can be a very alienating thing for the viewer. And it can work with mixed results. Of course, there's good films like Return of the Jedi where we kind of sympathize with Vader at the end and stuff like Taxi Driver where Travis Bickle completely alienates us at the end. But, it seems like if the character is too far one way or another the audience can't really switch. And the example of Mogwai becoming evil in Gremlins is definitely a point in case.

Script Link: This is really hard to get. If you email me at huntingforislafisher@gmail.com, I'll provide you with a copy.

Wag the Dog - 2nd Draft

Genre: Black Comedy / Satire / David Mamet

Premise: A few weeks from Presidential elections, the President is caught in a closet with a girl scout. When the opposite party starts using this issue as a way to lessen the President's support, a spin doctor is hired to fake a hyper realistic war with Albania which includes television footage.

About: Beinart wrote "American Hero" after wondering if the Persian Gulf War had been fought largely to shore up President Bush's sagging presidency, and makes it unabashedly obvious in the novel that George HW Bush is the president and the war is The Gulf War. Mamet took the theme of the book -- a president using a war to divert public attention from a scandal -- but created his own dark scenario peopled with the disillusioned characters he usually embraces.

Writers: Based on "American Hero, a novel, by Larry Beinhart (who doesn't have that many novels, at least nothing I've ever heard of). Hilary Henkin (who co-wrote Roadhouse w/ Patrick Swayze, that's right apparently they needed a co-writer for that piece of crap) wrote the first draft, which was subsequently rewritten, polished, fixed and revised by David Mamet (Glengary Glen Ross, American Buffalo, The Untouchables). Henkin's name was originally left off the finished film, so she took the issue to the Writer's Guild. Barry Levinson (the director of Wag the Dog) claimed her influence had been minimal which is why she wasn't acknowledged. But Henkin got her name on the script anyway.

There are a few things, which will unavoidably alter the perspective through which I view this film: I read a second draft and I haven't seen the finished product, the dialogue is very blatantly Mamet inspired, and I was only four when the incidents in this novel came about so I don't remember them with very much accuracy. And, for the record, I'm not a huge Dr. Strangelove fan, and that film is nearly the archetype of Wag the Dog. But that being said, this is a very solid film. It's not brilliant, but I'd say it's pretty good and as far as Mamet goes, entertaining.

The characters speak in the reflect, dialogue driven Mamet-style mining each word and exploring multiple uses. It's a little bit more grounded than the other Mamet stuff (I studied Oleanna alot this summer and there aren't any weird passages here about what "What?" means). But, the thing is this is very dark in dialogue tone. And it's very believable, which is an an almost unsettingly combination. Ultimately, I found the whole thing humorous because we're in on the joke/cover-up from the ground floor. The best part is the filming of a bogus Albanian battle scene and recording of a "We are the World" sort of song. I love that. It's almost too funny for Strangelove, and reminds me more of Sullivan's Travels.

Now, it's not a bad film. But inevitably, like alot of these media scripts, the story is pretty slow moving and ultimately it boils down to nothing more than a couple of actions and a court scene. In this one, I love the build up and I just wish the film had spent more time on how all this stuff was specifically done and to what effect. Also, the film becomes nothing more than an intellectual challenge. I mean, sure there are fun parts and laughs, but inevitably alot like Dr. Strangelove this whole thing rides on watching a bunch of higher up Presidential people, and I always have a hard time relating to these types of characters because they're so removed from my world. But besides a slow pace and characters I had a hard time getting behind, this script sets itself up well in terms of dialogue, action and humor.

Also, the whole thing ends remarkably flat. I almost thought I'd missed something, but I hadn't. It doesnt really try to make a point with the satire or show any sort of a causal relation. Just that television can destroy the electoral process, which brings us to the whole theme of the week...

The media in this is very much also in the note of The Truman Show. Let's note for a moment that Network (mid 70's) feared media, Quiz Show mourned the loss of intelligent media, and The Truman Show/Serial Mom/Wag The Dog, which all came out within a five year period of one another in late 90's, all suggest that media spins stories and images into ways which corrupt the viewers sense of what is real. Now that's interesting because there's a lot more films from this period that do exactly the same thing (Natural Born Killers, Reality Bites, Canadian Bacon, ED TV...) What was it in the last five years of the 90's that caused to have such an uproar of films assaulting the truthfulness of the media? Clinton? OJ? George HW? Who knows, but they seem to have all but subsided by the time Y2K rolled around. Wag the Dog is paricularly inventive in showing just how far the media goes to lie, and how exploitative that can be (it's much less focused on how these untruths affect us, but that's not it's intention.) Wag the Dog is fairly decently, albeit the darkest of the media scripts I've read this week by far.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: There really aren't any strong female roles here so no, no Isla stuff.

What I Learned: The spin doctor is allegedly very influenced around legendary producer Robert Evans (Chinatown, Love Story). It's kind of enjoyable and memorable when writers make archetypes from historical figures. It's also pretty easy to come up with original dialogue, descriptions and actions for a character when you're basing them around somebody you're vaguely aware of. The Coen brothers do this alot. William Faulkner among others in Barton Fink, and Robert Johnson in Oh Brother Where Art Thou? I've always liked this and it seems like a good way to make a second tier character come off as fascinating.

Script Link: This is all over Google.

Serial Mom

Genre: Black Comedy / Exploitation / John Waters (this should almost be a genre)

Premise: Beverly Sutphin, a Baltimore housewife with a 1950's sense of fashion and housekeeping, is a deranged, serial killer. Before being inevitably caught and put on trial, she kills the teacher who says her son isn't doing well in school, and the boy who stands up her daughter.

About: In the mid 90's, John Waters wrote the film originally for Julie Andrews to play Serial Mom. His last film had been Cry-Baby. It's hard to say much more about the creation of the film. It comes from the weird, John Waters place called Baltimore and isn't particularly connected at all to Hollywood. Wasn't adopted, adapted, or very much inspired.

Writer: John Waters

This is hands down the best John Waters script I've ever read. Ever. He has his voice down pat. (I think he lost his voice around Polyester briefly) His love for over the topness can be seen. (Unlike Hairspray) And he actually uses a legit structure. (Unlike most of his films) Wow!

Although, there aren't many things I'd applaud the film for, even if it is Waters' best work. Essentially it isn't funny. The killing scenes seem to come out of the blue. And it has that John Waters feel of a way too normal, boring beginning before the insanity kicks in. And, let's face it. The characters besides Serial Mom are particularly shallow and underdeveloped. It's like reading the actions of cardboard cutouts. (They aren't as nearly deranged as Waters old characters were either. About the freakiest character is a movie shop clerk who gets turned on by fake blood in films....I mean is that scary?)

A beautifully structured piece, this is not. The mom kills a few people. She gets caught. She has a trial. She's released. It's okay, though, and doesn't veer off into pointless directions like Pink Flamingos. The thing that's weird about this plot is Waters doesn't really give the mom a motive or much of a conscious decision to kill. Rather, she sometimes just goes off the deep end and hacks up a few people. She's like the Pavlov's dog of Serial Killers, which is kind of sad. And as a result, she never becomes that funny or that vicious. So from a humor stand point I think Waters failed (I always laugh more at the man than his movies anyway).

The thing is, the media in Serial Mom, is a very stereotypical portrayal. The media latches onto the ideas of killers, and makes murdering appear cool. (This theme is also touched upon in Natural Born Killers which came out within a few years of Serial Mom). But Waters doesn't seem particularly concerned with using this view of the media to represent or say anything. Other than, we're all inevitably deranged and we all want to be serial killers. (And that sounds like a message he may have been trying to carry across for the last few decades.)

I don't love John Waters' films. They're not something I'll read over and over again. They're very light on thrills for me. But, I do try to see/read every one of his films at least once, because I think John Waters is a fascinating man and I think his films do
unique exploitative things you don't normally see in Hollywood.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)

Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)

[X] - Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: As it is, Isla is probably a decade to young to play the Serial Mom character, but I think she could do this role justice. She has the dainty, over the top thing down pat.

What I Learned: Passive characters suck. I mean, there's Travis Bickle and the French underground stuff like Pickpocket, but essentially in most films it's really hard to watch a character who is ultimately passive. Rather than have Serial Mom lead up to, or be influenced to kill, it's like some mad dog takes her over and before we know it she's butchering a whole group of people. As a result, Serial Mom becomes weirdly passive, and we have a hard time laughing over her because we're spending too much time sympathizing about what a horrible addiction she must have. A kill here, a kill there, a trial, the trial fails..

Script Link: This is all over. Use any search engine.

Network

Genre: Black Comedy / Satire

Premise: Howard Beale, an aging TV anchorman for UBS, is fired and to be off air in two weeks after a long decline in ratings. He reacts by announcing his intention to commit suicide on air and becomes a major TV icon and one of the most valuable assets to CCA, the company that’s buying out UBS. Beale is even given his own show. The program is a huge success, but when Beal begins to make shocking revelations about CCA, people start planning his assassination.

About: In the late 1970’s when a major worldwide company was in negotiations to buy ABC, Paddy Chayefsky realized once a multinational corporation took over a network, they might try to make the news division a profit center, enabling them to bastardize the news and turn it into entertainment. Chayefsky had just come out of a lawsuit with United Artists challenging the studio’s right to release Chayefsky’s previous film, Hospital, in combination with another, much inferior picture. As a result, producer Howard Gottfried secured a deal at MGM.
Writers: Paddy Chayefsky

Selected by The National Film registry, praised by The Library of Congress, and voted one of the top ten scripts of all time by the Writers Guild –East, Network is the pinnacle of screenwriting excellence. I think we all know it for the “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore” line. And while I also definitely enjoy the film, are these accolades well merited?

You know what I love about Network more than anything? How it switches between main story line (Beale going crazy and having his TV show) and the side plot of Diana Christiansen, the workaholic network exec, and her relationship with Max Schumacher, the aged news executive, who enters in a failed romantic tryst with her. The Beale scenes are crazily over the top, and the scenes with Diana and Max are smooth, quiet, drama. And that’s the brilliant thing about Network. It balances a whole bunch of different tones (quiet drama, craziness, behind the scenes) into one acceptable atmosphere. In that way, it’s sort of set up like an Altman film where all these universes collide on one another.

Also, this film is great at carrying out into scenes that probably wouldn’t work in real life, but we’re capable of accepting due to film logic. The long monologues. All the crowds that go hog wild over the “mad as hell” thing. There’s also a sex scene where Diana and Max discuss ratings, which works great and is totally memorable. There’s so much stuff here that the audience is sold on because it hooks you just right.

The thing is, Network doesn’t have much of a meaning besides the fact that the television audience is a bunch of drones. There’s a rant about the evils of Arabians. Are we supposed to take that face value? Yes. Ultimately television is a medium capable of brainwashing people with bad ideas. But, ultimately, because Chayefsky lets Beale spew out whatever insane message he wants, that means we’re giving truth and legitimacy to these rants, which are at times bigoted and xenophobic. Chayefsky made a really powerful script, but I’m not sure he handled the material responsibly. And as a result, Network comes across with a message I’m not too crazy about.

What does this mean in terms of the media as depicted? TV has become crap. Nothing but cheap thrills. Shock jocks. Howard Stern. Jerry Springer. And, as the world gets crazier, television becomes a medium filled with more loons and crazier ringmasters. And ultimately, we’re becoming slaves to this crap and need to break out and act in our own ways. We must unleash ourselves from TV. I think in the late 70's, this was probably a much more startling and fresh idea then it is now. This message now is a blatantly obvious one.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: The Faye Dunaway would be a great Isla role. It has the suave, woman of the world feel to it Isla pulls off so successfully in Definitely, Maybe.

What I Learned: You always hear that extended monologues don’t fly in screenplays. But, with the right dialogue, the right theme and introduced in the same frame monologues can be really successful. In Network, these monologues have become one of the most memorable parts to the film. It’s a great turn. And another example that there are no hard or fast rules to the screenwriting craft.

Quiz Show - 1991 Draft

Genre: Drama

Premise: The script tells the story of fixed 1950's game show, 21. After contestant Herb Stempel takes a fall, Charles Van Doren becomes reining champion. And a new hotshot Harvard lawyer, Richard Goodwin, investigates the cover-up.

About: The picture was sold by Attanasio, repped by CAA to Disney. Redford almost immediately entered discussion to direct the film. Attanasio was associated with Levinson. Levinson and Mark Johnson were attached as producers. More surprisingly, the product was developed for Richard Dreyfuss. It was in rewrites for most of the early 90's until the proper cast had been lined up. Attanasio based the script over a chapter in
a book by the actual Richard Goodwin.

Writers: Paul Attanasio. Who really, asides from a few episodes of Doctor, Doctor, didn't have any credits at this point. He's the brother of the guy from the Milwaukee Brewers and had worked as a film critic at the Washington Post in the late 80's.

I watched this on video several years ago, and found it unbelievably boring. I believed the script was good, though, because I kept coming across it in books about Screenwriting. Upon investigating further, this is definitely a solid effort if a bit formulaic and predictable. My favorite thing about the script is that it feels honest and it's not afraid to condemn all involved. van Doren is wrong to play the game, Goodwin is ridiculed for taking this case, and one really questions the sanity of Sempel. And the television studios are also made to seem fairly ridiculous. Blows are made all around, and that's a very worthwhile thing. Although, quite like Nixon, it's not particularly the crimes that are evil it's that these people are the first to have been discovered doing such things and set history on a less than dignified track.

But the problem is that, all of the characters are actually as we expect them. Obviously once we find out Sempel takes the fall, we know we'll get mad and get even. Van Doren is so lofty it's inevitable that eventually he'll have moral qualms. It's like Attanasio came to a crossroads: be true to the actual events or alter characters and make a story that was fun to follow. He chooses the former, and opts to make an archaic, predictable script with a framework where we really don't feel committed to the ride. And, when the script ends we don't really feel that the characters have changed. That's the problem with script show, and what I'd anticipate is that the actors behind this thing took the opportunity because the script was issue heavy and they felt the opportunity to pursue these deep roles was Oscar worthy.

While The Truman show condemned the power and untrustworthiness of the media, Quiz Show highlights the advent of television in the 1950's focuses on media's decision to highlight entertainment over enlightenment, which in turn dulls the value of everyone involved: either turning
the educational merits of Van Doren into novelty, the political career of Dick Goodwin into nothing more than a top-notch lawyer who investigates the trustworthiness of unimportant game shows, or the world of literature and high art which are being supplanted by silly television programs. I'm sure this was very scary for intellectuals in the 1950's (I'm thinking of Newton Minow's condemnatory "vast wasteland" speech of 1961) and it's even sure that as television became even more widespread in the early 1990's and the battle over what was appropriate raged, these fear were probably as scary as ever.

The Quiz Show is fun, and it's a breezy read. But ultimately, for me, it lacks real depth and as a result doesn't pique my interest.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: No real female roles here, so Isla wouldn't work.

What I Learned: I love learning about people's professions. As do most people. Scripts that offer us an inside view of somebody's profession (Quiz Show, every Michael Mann film) have an easier time getting a steady following from readers.

Script Link: This is all over Google

Truman Show - 1992 Draft

Genre: Sci-Fi that became Sci-Fi Comedy

Premise: A 30-some year old man living in New York City slowly discovers that his world is strangely predictable. Eventually, he discoversthat his life is nothing more than a television show that's filming 24/7 and all his family and friends are hired actors.

About: The original drafts of The Truman Show (which was first an outline called The Malcom Show) was very futuristic and set in New York City.Scott Rudin bought the script in the fall of 1993 for $1 million. Niccol was to direct, but Paramoutn felt the $80 million budget was way too high. A few directors were considered: De Palma, Burton, Gilliam, Snnenfeld, Spielberg and then Peter Weir (who is also from New Zeland) was signed in early 1995. As draft went on, the studio requested the story become funnier and less dramatic. Sixteen drafts later, Weir had ashooting script on his hands.

Writers: Andrew Niccol has sole screenwriting credit. He'd done Gattaca and had a pretty solid TV directing background.

I saw this film years ago in the theaters, and haven't seen it since. I remember I was about ten minutes late so I missed the first part of the film. That didn't seem to make much of a difference, though, because The Truman Show isn't that sophisticated a story line. A man's lifeis actually a TV Show. And, if you ask me, choosing to make this film a comedy is a completely ridiculous idea. It became just another vehiclefor Jim Carrey's screwball antics, and that theme undermines the greatness of the Truman/Malcom show. Also the decision to cast this film ina suburban environment was a misstep as far as I'm concerned. As someone who lived in New York City for many years, it's the perfect place tostop and in a moment of pure insanity wonder if all the bustle around you is actually moving in synch to you.

There's also several plot devices that were added to the script after the draft I read: Truman was made afraid of water to make more drama whenTruman finally does escape, Sylvia (the girl Truman falls in love with outside of his marriage) starts a "Free Truman" campaign which creates a nice subplot, there's a nucleur meltdown when Truman is attempting different ways to leave to create tension, Truman begins to stay in the basementin the film rather than just creating a dummy and escaping during the night like in the script, the people cheer on Truman's escape in the filmto add onto the subplot, and in the script while Truman escapes his world and wanders the film studio in the film he speaks to his creator andthe movie ends with him leaving his world which makes alot more sense (the film studio stuff although neat isn't necessary).

Inevitably, the media in The Truman Show is represented as all invasive (which is why it makes so much sense to set the film in New York City, the hubub of the media world, rather than some imaginary suburb). Also, keep in mind in the late 90's the internet was really starting to takeoff and it was creepy to many how connected the world was finally becoming. Truman is filled with illusions (fake buildings, fake people, fakeevents) that attempt to represent real events, which parallels the world of biased media coverage, and particularly Fox news. The world is allinvasive, and it's nearly impossible to determine differences between the real and fake. And then, when things blow up in our faces and the liescan't be held in anymore, we have startling moments of realizations. The whole film stands as a direct allegory.

The Truman show's primary flaw is that in becoming so fixated on presenting this allegory, ultimately it falls by the wayside in terms of presentingany other storylines to follow or other things to entertain our imaginations. And to me, this is a waste of story. Why set up a concept so deliciousand not explain other, unique elements to this world? During the slow moments of the script, when Truman was taking his sweet time to realize thathe was in fact in the middle of a world where everybody was watching him, I found myself wondering things like: how do the actors live in this bubblewhen they're not on TV and not about to see seen by Truman, how exactly do the technical elements of this world work, and what events were so entertainingto keep a whole audience watching Truman was in the midst of boring years. Judging by the finished product, the studios tried to solve this problemby giving us other story lines to follow. But like, Forest Gump or The Sixth Sense, the decision was made that in order to follow such a unique characterand for the audience to buy into such a unique concept ultimately we'd have to focus just on this one character and not see much outside their perspective.

That being, said, I have a newfound respect for the Truman Show. Even if it was misinterpreted by the direct, and potentially risked being nothingmore than a screwball comedy with Jim Carrey.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)


Isla Prospects: Normally I'd say Isla would have played a good Meryl (Truman's wife), judging by The Wanna Be's and The Look Out she has experienceplaying a female figure who is hiding pretty heavy secrets. But, having seen Laura Linney in this role, I really can't imagine anyone else.

What I Learned: While you can connect theme to story, that doesn't necessarily mean you'll end up with something that's high entertainment. But, undermost circumstances, you will end up with something that is remarkably powerful. In many ways, The Truman Show is a good film that would have been greatif it's theme was mined for further story potential.

Script Link: Google has several drafts.

The Television Media Week

I love it when people suggest random themes. I end up studying a genre I otherwise wouldn’t give a second thought. One of my readers suggested I spend a week reviewing scripts about the television media After the Carson Reeves / John August debacle, I’m going to more cautious than ever and focus on reviewing classic unproduced scripts than approaching close to recently purchased spec scripts. So what you’ll find this week is my weigh-ins on a couple classic scripts every screenwriter should know, and review of early drafts on a handful of other scripts. If I can think of any great unproduced specs that fit this theme, I’ll be sure to also include them. It’ll be a great week.

So what do I mean when I say television media…?

Film seems to reveal media in the TV as an all-invasive, ever hungry monster that won’t leave people alone. And then ultimately, the subject of the media go completely crazy under the scrutiny. It opens up a whole range of films: Truman Show, Network, Quiz Show, Bamboozled, Serial Mom, Natural Born Killers are the films I could think up off the top of my head. Network being much earlier and different in that the media was still depicted as all controlling. Besides that, I don’t have much of an idea about genre conventions or what the typical plot elements are. So this’ll be pretty informative all around.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Genre: Action-Adventure inter splice with one line comedic bits

Premise: Indiana Jones and his partner Mac are cornered by Russians in an Area 51 warehouse. This is the warehouse that held the arc. Indy is forced to find the remains of an ET. Mac double crosses. Indy escapes. There's the nuclear blast scene. (Darabont) Back at his campus, Indy learns Oxley was kidnapped hunting the crystal skulls. (Darabont) Indy teams up with Mutt on the way to Peru. They're kidnapped again by the Russians and taken to a camp where Oxley and Marion Ravenwood are. Marion reveals Mutt is her son. And Indy turns out to be Mutt's father. The group escapes, and Mac reveals he's actually a US spy double-crossing the Russians. There's the killer bug and the jeeps/cliff scenes (Darabont) The five reach the temple, Mac is still loyal to the Soviets and drops a homing beacon. The five enter the chamber containing the skulls, the aliens communicate through Oxley. Indy, Marion, Mutt and Oxley escape while Mac and the Russians are sucked into the portal. (Darabont) Back home, Indiana Jones marries Marion. (Saucer Men)

About: This script, with the exception of the middle part that tells the story of Indiana Jones and Mutt, is exactly what you can find plot-wise in Frank Darabont City of Gods script. Although, where Darabont's script was a little subdued and not so eager to be comedic, Crystal Skull attempts to go full on blockbuster, one-line comedic jokes.

Writers: Asides from the requisite Lucas credits for story and characters, Jeff Nathanson (who wrote Spielberg's Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal) is credited for story, Philip Kaufman (who is always credited, he did work on Raiders), David Koepp is solely credited as screenwriter. Koepp, the Spielberg/Lucas bright boy of the week after Chris Columbus and Lawrence Kasdan, wrote the scripts for Jurassic Park, Mision Impossible, Jurassic Park: The Lost World, Spider-man, and War of the Worlds. No mention of Darabont whatsoever. That's just messed up.

You know what's funny? The opening sequenceo of this film is awesome. Everything up until Indiana Jones has his first encounter with Mutt, at which point this whole film slides off into a world of fake sentimentality and ridiculousness. And that's funny because the Mutt thing is the first time where something Koepp added creeps into the script.

Actually, if you take a look at it so much of Darabont's script is much better than the Koepp re-write, which is exactly what it is.

1) The Title "City of Gods" sounds much cooler than "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"

2) Darabont didn't try to write a comic book stripped of any real violence or action

3) Indy's age in Koepp's script is nothing more than a running joke. Darabont expanded on this.

4) In Koepp's draft Indy has no real driving motivation.

5) The Russians in Koepp's scripts were not scary. At all. Darabont actually had strong villains.

6) The character of Marion actually had a point and a developed personality in Darabont's draft. Koepp just made her an item.

7) In Darabont's draft, there's an actual fight on the rocket sled with an established bad guy. Not just some evil Russian.

8) Darabont's draft is more specific and layered.

9) Darabont wasn't stupid enough to include Mutt.

10) Darabont wrote Indy in New York City. Yes please!

11) While I wasn't completely happy with the relics in Darabont's draft, they were at least given a longer back story and made to see more important.

12) Heart ripping in Temple, people being turned to skeletons in Raiders, the guy who drinks from the holy cup, there's a Darabont scene where frogs jump out of somebody's mouth. Awesome.

13) Darabont didn't have the script focus around Mutt and his evolution into a man. This is Indiana Jones 4, not Mutt 1.

14) Oxley was actually well set up in Darabont's draft, Koepp just made him some old crazy guy.

15) Darabont was not nearly muddled in dialogue, action, or the number of skulls.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] -Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Marion is really the only female in here, and I can't ever imagine anyone being Marion except Karren Allen. Let her have it.

What I Learned: Set up and pay off. Something Darabont did that Koepp never realized was Indy always gets out of situations only to find himself in even worse ones. That's what this whole series is about. And it makes for a really good, exciting story.

Script Link: This one is on the unofficial Indy site under scripts, it's a little bit more difficult to find than the unproduced scripts.

City of Gods (Indy #4 of 5)

Genre: Action-Adventure-Comedy

Premise: After his Area 51 adventure, Indiana Jones goes to Peru to track down Marion Ravenwood and her husband, who are on the trail of a lost city. Oh yeah, Sallah and Henry Jones are still alive. There isn’t a swarm of Nazi's like in Crystal Skull. Eventually the film becomes a chase to the lost city. And the alien is a heck of a lot meaner. But besides that, you've basically got the Crystal Skull. So that means: the car chase near the cliffs, the killer red ants, the alien vortex and people who become possessed. Everything in that film is here. There's just no Indy sidekick, and Marion is with her husband.

About: This script is remarkably to close to what ended up in the finished film. Really close. And what’s perhaps even more surprising is that the draft I read was written several years before the film’s actual release and David Koepp is the only one with credit on the final script. (I’d definitely fight that if I was Darabont). Lucas ultimately rejected Darabont's draft. (I think probably because it didn't suck hard enough).

Writers: Asides from the prerequisite Lucas credit, the writer is Frank Darabont who at this point had written tons of B-movie scripts including The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, The Blob, Nightmare on Elm Street 3, and The Fly 2. (He also did The Green Mile, probably his most loved script. As an asides, he has been discussing doing Richard Bahman/Stephen King’s The Long Walk about a deadly marathon. Due to his reputation on the The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, Darabont was hired by Speilberg in the late 90’s/early 2000’s. The script is very close to what ended up in the Crystal Skull, but Darabont recalled it as a “tremendous disappointment and a waste of a year”.

I saw the film several months ago, but it’s jarring how close City of Gods is to Crystal Skull. It’s even more jarring that Darabont wasn’t given credit on the final version. Perhaps the largest difference is the heavy dose of maudlin sentimentality that Lucas added in by creating Indy’s son. But the overall arch is the same thing here. Escewhing Kasdan's heavy emphasis on archaeology, the amount of trouble from Doom, and no real quest like in Last Crusade, this version still manages to feel kind of close to an Indiana Jones adventure. Ultimately, with a relic we aren't attached to (Crystal Skulls), a hokey mythology, and an Indiana Jones who isn't nearly as dangerous as he used to be, this script feels ultimately unfulfilling.

The two major failings of this script are A) The low-level of tension. I think this Marion thing is supposed to be hard for Indy, but I never really got an impression of that. And I know there's a chase to the city with potentially disastrous consequences but one never really gets an idea of what happens if the team fails. So this thing sort of rides along on fumes. And B) I don't care about the relic. It's pretend. It's made up. It's silly. Aliens, I guess, could work, but not in the situation that they've been described. Why couldn't be something even more original? Why? Also Marion very unconvincingly dumps her husband at the end for Indy. I actually felt bad for the guy. I know it's supposed to be a storybook ending, but this just didn't work.

I mean, really people how hard is it to come up with an Indiana Jones adventure? This is not that difficult. We start off with an unrelated opening where Indy retrieves a holy object despite traps from a pretty cool hideout. Then, we cut to America, where Indy is teaching and all kinds of crap is falling down around him, he's called to adventure, Indy goes on several misadventures on the way to the relic, catches up with some old friends and ultimately ends up at a fortress of traps, which at the end holds relic, which I defined what characteristics it should contain yesterday. Oh, and some bad guys are on his tail. Saucer Men and Monkey King didn't seem to get this formula at all. And City of Gods comes close, but ultimately trips over its own two feet. I'd say this is slightly better than Crystal Skull, though, because the script isn't nearly as maudlin. But Last Crusade, City of Gods is not. It's a noble attempt, with no major failings, but ultimately just doesn't get the formula of this series.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: None. Marion is past middle aged at this point so the age gap is all wrong to even consider her. But physical differences aside, Marion is a little too domesticated and plain for Isla.

What I Learned: Monkey King had a lot of big budget stunts, as does City of Gods. I'm not really sure Monkey King would have been all that more expensive, even though it was slightly goofy in places. An edited down version of Monkey King would have kicked the snot out of City of Gods/Crystal Skull, but at the time (mid 1980's) the film was too expensive. This goes to show there's been a world opened up by modern film-making that enables more visual and stunts, often at the price of a story's quality.

Script Link: This is also widely available on Google.

Indiana Jones and The Saucer Men from Mars (Indy #3 of 5)

Genre: Action-Adventure

Premise: This script is even more ridiculous than the Chris Columbus Monkey King script. Opening with Indy proposing to Dr. Elaine McGregor and a wedding scene with cameos from everybody in the series (marion, Willie, Short Round,Henry Jones, Sallah) the script moves towards Indy discovering an alien cylinder and ship in New Mexico. Along the way there are giant bugs, a rocket sledfight (kind of like what will appear in crystal skull), an atomic explosion(which also parallels crystal skull) and a final fight between US military and flying saucers.

About: The script I read is dated February 20, 1995. Allegedly Lucas and Speilberg made a deal with Paramount for five Indie films in the late 70's. As Speilberg went on to make "mature" films, Lucas couldn't come up with a very good device to base on the story around and worked on The Indiana Jones Chronicles. Lucas got the idea for a film about aliens, but Spielberg and Ford both rejected the idea. Soon after the draft I read, Jeffrey Boam (who wrote the Last Crusade) did three drafts of the scripts. By this time it was around 1996, and still over a decade until the next Indy film.

Writers: Jeb Stuart, whose name I'd never heard. Turns out he had writing credits on Die Hard (I thought Desouza was the driving force here?), Leviathan, Another 48 hours, and The Fugitive. There's a shared credit with Lucas, but George's name appears on everything in the film so it's hard to say just how much input he had.

There are two things that this script does, which I absolutely hate. I don't know if you can pin these errors on Jeb Stuart becauase Lucas seems to have made many of the general story points.

A) The Artifact - If we don't care about the fortune Indy makes from his treasures, or the fame he'll gather, and if he really is just collecting items for the good of the cause then why not pick items we've heard about and leave the crystal skull/alien cylinder crap at the door?

Unfortunately, alot of these lost items belong to Christian mythology. But the device should not be something the audience cares very little about. What about Atlantis like in the comics? The Dead Sea Scrolls? Shoot, Excalibur? In Saucer Men, these aliens aren't even explained or set up. They're just creepy and appear randomly at the ends (like in Signs). I mean,if you're going to pick something out of alien history why not specifically use the Roswell crash and model it around this. Using a vague focal item is really ridiculous.

B) Indy's dialogue/personality - It's a bit of a stretch believing Indy would get married. It's an even more improbable stretch that Indy would soften up as a man and start referring to his wife as "baby breath". The Indy in Saucer Men is nowhere near as sullen, sharp, or caustic as the one we know and as a result a lot of the time he doesn't even feel like Indy.

It's true that after Indy meets this woman, he has a wedding scene which reads like Indiana Jones trivia: Henry Jones as best man, Sallah and Short Round as usher, and Willie and Marion as Indy's cheer up team after he gets stood up. And it' a great scene.

The biggest problem is Indy's romance with Dr. McGregor. The script jumps after the couple meets, and attempts to say that six weeks later without much of an idea of who this lady even is that the couple is in love. Right. That's completely ridiculous. And then Indy says he loves her. I mean, seriously, did Indy go soft during World War 2? If so it isn't explained.The real Indiana Jones might tell somebody he loves them, but never as randomly and carelessly as this guy does.
And for those of you who feel like I missed a plot summary, I didn't really. There isn't much going on in terms of globe trotting. Indy is in Borneo and meets Dr. McGregor, Indy almost gets married and stood up at his wedding in Princeton (where apparently he teaches now), Indy goes on a chase for his woman in New Mexico and discovers Dr. McGregor is trying to decode alien cylinders, a dog fight between the US Government and aliens, and then the end where Indy finally gets hitched.

Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)

[X] - Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
Hot Rod (Good)

Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: If Isla ever tires of low grade comedic romances, she'd do well to be a love
interest in adventures. She has that bouncy, world-traveledthing and would serve as a good comedic foil.

What I Learned: For a really long time I struggled with how to write dialogue in such a way that it gave each character a different personality. I was thinking of what the character'd say, how much they'd reveal, and what types of word choices they'd use. While that's in the right vein, a much more helpful way in writing dialogue is to think about what the character wouldn't say. I'd have a much more difficult time telling you exactly how Indiana Jones would speak, but reading Saucer Men I can almost definitely tell you what phrases and nicknames he'd absolutely never use.

Script Link: Google "indiana jones and the flying saucer men script". You'll find something.

Indiana Jones and the Monkey King (Indy #2 of 5)

Genre: Action-Adventure

Premise: After some ghost-banshee hunting at a Scottish estate, Indiana Jones sets out on the hunt of the legendary Monkey King and his garden of golden peaches. There’s also a “hilarious” subplot about Indy’s romance with one of his underage students.

About: Temple of Doom was a hit. A sequel was needed. After Diane Thomas (Romancing the Stone) was either let go or perished in an unfortunate car crash, Chris Columbus was brought on (he was basically Speilberg’s bright boy of the week like Robert Zemekis had been five years previously). I’ve heard everything from “the script was written for a young director” to “None of us wanted to go to Africa for four months”. But those statements beat around the bush. This script is expensive. Really expensive. And it’d be remarkably hard to film all of the actions sequences, so I’m going to say it was scrapped ultimately because it was too exorbitant. Ultimately, there were several more writers brought in before Last Crusade reached completion.

Writers: Chris Columbus (who has a ton of credits directing, but at this time had written the scripts for Gremlins, Goonies, and Young Sherlock Holmes)

This is the most enjoyable Indy script I’ve ever read. You know how Goonies veers off in another weird direction every five minutes? You know how Gremlins has this very witty chaos in the midst of black comedy? That’s what the Monkey King does. There are definitely things in here that were kept for the Last Crusade (the Venice boat chase and the scene with tanks). Plus there’s an awesome scene at a Scottish castle for the mandatory opening action sequence. Also, Indy is taken out of his Christian realm and made to hunt Chinese artifacts, which does much to expel his image as a religious zealot.

The thing is, though, Chris Columbus goes straight up weird with this story. Like, at times I thought I was reading Hot Shots Part Deux mixed with Never-ending Story. In addition to riding a rhino while tank hunting and hunting pygmies, Indy is actually killed. Legitimately deceased. That is, until somebody tosses a golden peach into his grave. Now, I can see how this would bother some. But, Indy has always sort of relied on completely insane set pieces and ridiculously improbable stunts. So, who really cares if this script is a little too insane in places if it’s fun and original?

I have more of a problem that Chris Columbus has this running joke about how Indy is actually a child rapist because he dates underage grad students. And, he writes the whole thing off like it’s this big joke and we should in turn all laugh about it. I mean, really? This is about as racist as the Asians in 1941. Betsy, Indy’s student who is in love with him, also frequently threatens to commit suicide if Indy won’t return the affections. I mean, that’s crazy. And mixed with Gremlins/Goonies-like action? This is jarring. Not to mention, Chris Columbus lovingly makes all Scots drunk, all Africans primitives. I mean, shoot even the Nazis and the Indian thugs were kind of multi-layered.



Scooby Doo (Complete Crap)
Atilla (Poor, Few Redeeming Qualities)
Wedding Crashers (Mediocre)
[X] - Hot Rod (Good)
Definitely Maybe (Pretty Darn Good)

Isla Prospects: Not really at all. Betsy is too young, and there’s another female competitor of Indy’s who is way too old.

What I Learned: When your characters team up with an insurmountable God as easily and ready as Indy and crew join up with The Monkey King, there really isn’t much of a challenge for your good guys. As a result, this whole thing doesn’t feel as hopeless or as desperate as the other Indy films. So when I read on the Indy wiki that in the second draft of Monkey King, Columbus deleted Betsy and turned Sun Wu into a villain, I felt like both of the main comments I made here (Betsy doesn’t fit, Sun Wu’s alliance is too easy) were taken into consideration.

Script Link: There are several sites online posting this script. If you do a Google search for “Indiana Jones and The Monkey King”, it can easily be found.