2010 Academy Award and Razzie Nominations Announced

Today, film lovers around the world finally got to find out what the 10 Best Picture Nominees for the 82nd annual Academy Awards are. Some of us are groaning, some are griping, and some are pleasantly surprised. I'm more curious than anything - how can up be nominated for both Best Picture and Best Animated Feature? 

Of course, the end of January doesn't just signal time to recognize the year's best cinematic accomplishments - it's also a great opportunity to look back at (or avoid) some of the most epic film failures of the past 12 months. And for that, we have the Razzies. 

If you haven't see the nominations yet - for both the year's best and worst - here is a sampling.

Best Picture

"Avatar"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Precious: Based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
"Up in the Air"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"Up"
"The Blind Side"
"District 9"
"An Education"
"A Serious Man"

Best Original Screenplay

"The Hurt Locker"
"Inglourious Basterds"
"The Messenger"
"A Serious Man"
"Up"

Best Adapted Screenplay

"District 9"
"An Education"
"In the Loop"
"Precious"
"Up in the Air"

Best Director

Quentin Tarantino, "Inglourious Basterds"
Kathryn Bigelow, "The Hurt Locker"
James Cameron, "Avatar"
Lee Daniels, "Precious: Based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
Jason Reitman, "Up in the Air"

Best Animated Feature

"Up"
"Coraline"
"Fantastic Mr. Fox"
"The Princess and the Frog"
"The Secret of Kells"

Best Foreign-Language Film

"Ajami"
"El Secreto de Sus Ojos"
"The Milk of Sorrow"
"Un Prophète"
"The White Ribbon"

And on the other side of the fence:

Worst Picture of 2009

“All About Steve”

“G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra”

“Land of The Lost”

“Old Dogs”

“Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen”

Worst Screenplay of 2009"All About Steve"

"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra"

"Land of The Lost"

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

"Twilight Saga: New Moon"

To see all Oscar nominated films, click here. 

For all Razzie candidates, click here.

The Writing Week (Vol. 3) part 109 - Should you Follow the Trend?

Should writers follow the current Hollywood trends? Do they make the trends? Should they even worry about them? These are questions that I never really thought about recently, at least not so far as they dictated my writing. Recently though, I can't help but seriously consider what's being released and what has recently sold when trying to determine which idea I should work on next. 

While it's worth noting that all aspiring writers ought to have multiple ideas in the queue - this isn't so much to gauge your seriousness as a writer, as it is your future success as more than a one-trick pony – this post assumes you have a few ideas. (It’s fine if you don’t yet – focus on finishing your first script before getting too far ahead of yourself.) So now let’s say you’re trying to decide which script to write next. Let’s also assume that all your ideas are of equal urgency to you. Whether you’re repped up or not, you might wonder how much Hollywood’s current trends should affect you decision.

Of course, my voice is just one out of many (and one that is not too well known in the industry – yet). Still, I can tell you that both my current and previous manager have been very hesitant about giving me the green light to work on specs that are similar to something(s) that has just sold. Any studio that doesn’t yet have a vampire movie (hypothetical – I’m sure they all have 6) will most likely not want to risk their neck-biter flick on an unknown writer. That means, they’re going with the big guns, and you and I do not fit the bill. So, I doubt I’d write a vampire script right now if I had other ideas rattling around there. (I know this sounds like a bit of hypocrisy. After all, I’m trying to sell a post-Apocalyptic spec on the heels of not only The Road, but also Book of Eli and 2012, to name but a few.)

Granted, there’s the flip side to trends. Now might be the PERFECT time for you to write a rom-com about a woman who goes to Europe and meets the perfect man. When in Rome and Leap Year both look terrible, and studios might just be looking for “the movie those should have been.” Likewise with my post-apocalyptic spec, Eli and The Road both got middling reviews, so I know that part of the train of thought is that people still want to see a more successful version of that world. On the other hand, a couple flops can kill a genre.

We seem to be back at square one – should you follow the trend? Maybe. I can tell you now that I’ve met with incredible resistance to trying to establish a franchise. If you’re hoping to write your own superhero movie, because superheroes are all the rage, you should know that hardly anyone will want to risk $150 million on your self-created superheroes (believe me, I’ve tried). And unless you have something incredibly unique to say about zombies, now might not be the best time. We’ve seen every form of zombie there is recently – except ballerina zombies, which I just copyrighted – so studios are likely to edge away from that soon.

Maybe a better question is: should you determine the trend? If you can’t quite determine it, can you at least get ahead of it? Maybe you remember watching some sasquatch movie when you were a kid, and a generation later, there’s been no sasquatch movie. Well, it might be perfect time to unleash your sasquatch thriller on movie-goers.

Ultimately, what the answer comes down to is money. Studios don’t want to spend money, but they have to in order to make it. And they love making it. That means that right now, they’re looking for the “sure” things. Unfortunately, that means sequels and franchises. It does also mean trends, but only to a certain extent. Slasher films are usually a low risk venture because of the unknown talent and low budgets that can carry them. A new writer attempting a low risk venture like that can really distinguish him or herself by writing a knockout script. A new writer attempting a $100 million futuristic caper is facing much more of an uphill battle. If you can write a smart, relatively inexpensive, yet unique script that fits into the current trend, then go with it. Know that by the time your script is ready for production, the trend might be over, and your project could stagnate. For the most part, though, I think that what you and I have to do is write what we feel we can write most effectively right now, avoid the trends that just died, and just make sure that we’re breathing new air into whichever genre we tackle.

The Writing Week (Vol. 3) part 108 - Get an Outside Perspective

For the past seven months and change, I've been working with an independent producer and manager (and since October, a production company, as well) on my post-Apocalyptic spec. However, for the first year and a half that I've been developing this project, the League's feedback has been invaluable. I've consulted various Leaguers about different elements of the script on and off since June, but for the most part, they haven't been actively involved in fleshing out ideas with me for a while now. Last week, though, in order to bring them up to speed on things and (more importantly for me, at least) get the opinions of people who haven't had their head deeply in this material for two years, I brought the script back to the League.


Before I go any further, let me just reiterate something that is at the heart of the League; in our opinion, writers groups are an invaluable asset for aspiring writers. The importance of having people whose opinions you value and trust to be consistently honest and critical cannot be stressed enough. It is really only with the help of the League that I was able to get my script to a point where it attracted managers and producers. Because the feedback has been so valuable thus far, I knew that the first place I had to turn when wanting an outside perspective on the newest draft was my fellow Leaguers. 

Ask any writer and they will (probably) tell you - the more time you spend in the world of a script, the harder it can be to make sure that the readers and audience have all of the information that they need to follow the story. At this point, I've been working on this particlar script on and off for over two years, and while I've kept a close eye on it with help from my manager and producers, I know that we might be missing something valuable that, at this point, is elemental knowledge to us. 

The League met on Friday after work (a good end to the week/beginning of the weekend), and it was one of the more helpful meetings I've had in a while. My fellow Leaguers opened my eyes to a couple important aspects of the script. Not to give too much away, but over the course of the script, the protagonist's views on a couple groups operating within his world shift. The League made me realize that, while I'd done a solid job illuminating one group, I had failed to really offer much about the other, thinking that the first shift would cover both. Additionally, they helped me realize that my midpoint of Act Two scene, while functional, is not yet playing the crucial role that it can and is positioned to really achieve a lot for both the story and the main character. 

There were other things that the League helped me realize about the script, and now I feel like I'm either on the edge of a breakthrough epiphany, or will have to go back and re-work a lot of the script that will reveal itself to be flawed. Either way, my friends here at League HQ have proved themselves an incredibly important tool in my writer's toolbox and have served as the outside perspective I so badly needed to push through the final stages of this round of rewrites.

Creative Screenwriting Gets It Right

I've been a Creative Screenwriting magazine subscriber for just about a year now, though I've been an on and off reader for longer than that. While CS can be a pretty valuable resource for writers, I've also found it to be frequently disappointing. The first issue of 2010, though, I have to say, got it right. Creative Screenwriting finally went editorial (at least just this once).

A magazine like Creative Screenwriting, I have to assume, walks a fine line between what it can and can't do while trying to reach a niche market. I say this because, while there are some great segments in the bi-monthly periodical, there are also some parts that are clearly hesitant to be critical.

Let's start with what the magazine does right. the Agent's Hot Sheet is a great piece that polls agents and managers once every two months on a certain subject. Topics can be anything from tent-pole films to the state of the spec market. The advisory panel of go-to managers/agents contribute their thoughts and opinions for the benefit of readers, acknowledging that most of the readers are unproduced writers. Some of the info might be pretty basic, but there are often great little tidbits in there for even more accomplished writers.

The writer profiles that kick off each issue are also usually pretty worthwhile reads. These articles spotlight newly successful writers and detail a bit of their rise to becoming writers with a sale under their belts. Granted, when the headlines try to spin the profile as that of an overnight success, you have to be a little skeptical; often, the "overnight" writer spent ten years as a reader, assistant, and producer first. Still, these are worth reading and are always - at the very least - a good reminder that hard work can pay off.

There are other featured segments on craft and interviews with established writers are that usually worth a read. But throw all of the above together, and I'd say that leaves only about 33% of a typical Creative Screenwriting issues accounted for. The vast majority of the articles are interviews with writers of films currently or soon to be in theaters. These are interesting - often more so if you've seen the film(s) in question - but really not as useful as they could - read: should - be.

So here's where I put on my disgruntled subscriber cap and vent. Here at the League, we periodically review films. We're pretty up front about whether we think something's worked or not, and to the best of our abilities, we try to analyze a picture through the writing behind it. Creative Screenwriting, however, spotlights writers and their films, yet hardly ever offers any analysis of the script in question. For example, the article on SURROGATES, which you might remember we did not like, touted the accomplishment of getting the film made and detailed the writers' process and some of their experiences with the project. Fine. Dandy. But that's the same thing that the piece on BOOK OF ELI did. It's the same thing that the segment on DAYBREAKERS did. It's the same thing that the segment on THE MESSENGER did.

After a certain point, reading about a writer's process and their excitement about seeing their film made ceases to be helpful if it has no discussion of the quality of the film and script. Every writer interviewed will likely be thrilled that they sold something and got it onto the big screen. What readers need is an analysis of why something worked and why it didn't. Had I never seen Surrogates, I would think it was just as strong a film as every other one profiled in the magazine.

I'm aware that a periodical like Creative Screenwriting has to be careful not to alienate the writers it interviews, especially since it will most likely try to interview those people about their next project. No one wants to be interviewed by a magazine that slammed their last script. However, this cautionary approach results in a very finite amount of usefulness to readers. Unproduced writers - and I know this from personal experience - are looking for guidance in the form of lessons learned about what makes a script strong and what omissions can greatly weaken a script. With little to no analysis like this, the magazine becomes little more than a written commercial for the next two months' releases.

Ok, you might be wondering, what did I like about this issue? (If you're wondering why I still subscribe... stop. I do. That's all on that.) This issue, Creative Screenwriting kicked off the year with essays on different genres, how the films of the past decade influenced them, and why certain films stuck out as stellar examples of their genre. In short, this issue was not afraid to be more critical. Not every film referenced was praised. The columnists this issue weren't afraid to refer to scripts that failed to work, and they were equally unafraid to praise the hell out of ones that did. First time readers were introduced to an unfortunately uncommon level of analysis that actually did something to guide new and aspiring writers toward examples of strong and unsuccessful scripts. More than any other issue I've read, this one was a valuable and consistent learning tool. Perhaps the editors in charge will determine a way to get more bang for the readers' buck in the future, while still refraining from alienating or overly criticizing the screenwriters that they rely on for interviews.

The Writing Week (Vol. 3) part 107 - Writing in Chunks

For the past week and change, I've been struggling with the second half of Act Two. Yes, my friends, it looks like the first League villain that's squared off against me this year is the Dreaded Act Two. 

Just under a week ago at this point, I turned in a revised (though incomplete) draft of the second half of Act Two for my post-Apocalyptic spec to my producer. It was an odd time to submit to her, since I knew that the pages weren't quite working. On the other hand, I also knew I was stuck. They weren't working, but I needed a kick to help me get them rolling. Hence, what we called a "vomit" draft. 

 

In short, the pages sort of sucked. Luckily, Gretchen (my producer) and I have a solid enough relationship that I could turn in what I knew to be flawed pages. There were a couple key lines that just weren't strong enough yet to bring about a twist we were hoping to work into the script. To be honest, they're still not there, but by submitting the pages, at least I gave us a framework to try and make them work in. 

Pages or not, this is definitely not a time to sit idly by and hope for the epiphany that will clear things up. Though I'm not writing on any official deadline, I want to move as quickly as possible in order to stay immediately relevant. Because of that, I worked on Act Three while stuck on Act Two. Normally, I wouldn't advocate an approach like this - certainly not on a first draft. However, I know what the end of Act Two and this damn twist I'm trying to iron out lead to. I know what has to happen in Act Three. And I know what has to come before all that, too. So, in a slightly nontraditional approach (for me), I'm attacking the re-writes as a series of chunks. Act One is a chunk, in my mind. The next ten pages are another chunk. The remaining pages from Act Two are divided into two more chunks. Finally, Act Three is also two chunks. I guess you could also use the term "sequence" in place of chunk, but it's not necessarily that cut and dry.

Whatever terminology you subscribe to, the fact stands - by breaking up what I know I have to do this way, I'm order to make progress in one place while stuck in another. It's sort of a time saving technique. More than that, by smoothing out where my characters have to get to, perhaps I'll better be able to understand how they get there. At any rate, I'm sticking with this method until I work out the end of Act Two kinks.

A funny thing happened Monday night

Well, Tuesday morning, close to 2am.

What happened? I finished my draft of SILENT CITY. It was a bit of a surprise. I was working on it in my room -- had been for a few hours -- when I realized I was entering the final, climactic scene. I figured I'd finish the scene and go to bed. But once I closed out the main chunk of the story, the next thing I knew I was writing the epilogue I'd planned to add to the end. No spoilers here. By 2, I was done, and it was weird, exciting, nerve-wracking and pretty damn cool.

Now, this doesn't mean I'm done, DONE. Far from it. This draft needs revisions -- lots of 'em. But I always saw the first draft as really a hyper-detailed outline. A solid framework and road map that I could then add some colors and detail to. And I think that's what I have. The characters and scenery need more compelling detail and description of the world they live in, but overall, I'm pleased with the structure and pacing.

Does that mean the plot is without error? Far from it. There are a few scenes I'm on the fence about. But, as with the initial outline that became the novel, there's enough room to tinker with that I'm confident that with proper revision, I may reach my goal.

I always envisioned SILENT CITY as a fun, compact little detective novel, very much like Pelecanos' A FIRING OFFENSE, Lippman's THE SUGAR HOUSE or Lehane's A DRINK BEFORE THE WAR. Not overly pretentious or trying to be something it isn't. A solid read you could get through in a few days and possibly leave you wanting more from these characters.

Still, that doesn't mean I went in with no literary aspirations. One of the things I feel like the draft is missing -- and I'd like to remedy and beef up on revision -- is the setting. Miami is such a unique and vibrant town, and while you get snippets of that in reading the first draft, I'd love to paint a stronger picture of the place I called home for most of my life.

But, again, I'm not concerned about this. Novel writing is a lot like building a house. You need a strong foundation and framework first, then you can talk about what drapes to put in the guest room, you know?

So, my plan for the next few weeks is just that: to kick the walls a bit, test the doors and tighten the screws. Once I feel happy with the first draft -- well, happy enough to let someone else read it -- I'll pass it on to the League and see what they think. After those revisions are made, I have a short list of talented friends that I'll past the draft on to. Some are published authors or journalists, some are just really smart and well-read. All of them will bring valuable input to the process. After all that is done -- and pinch me when it is -- this irregular feature will become more about query letters and contacting agencies than the actual writing. But that's exciting, too, in its own way. Fingers crossed.

EW's 25 To Watch Before the 2010 Oscars

Right around this time, I do a big push to try to catch all well-received, powerful looking films I can before they disappear for theaters, only to reappear on DVD after awards season has ended. At the very least, I like to have seen all five (now ten) Best Picture nominated films before the Academy Awards. Top 10, 25, and 50 lists from across the web always help me keep track of what I feel I should (and want) to see.

 

In case you missed it, Entertainment Weekly released their list of 25 movies to watch before the Oscars. The thinking - these are the ones likely to nab award consideration, so if you want to be in the loop, check them out. (I'm well on my way with 12/25 down - though, apologies to all talent and crew involved, I think I'll be skipping a few on the list.)

(500) Days of Summer

A Serious Man

A Single Man

An Education

Avatar

The Blind Side

Bright Star

Crazy Heart

District 9

Fantastic Mr. Fox

The Hurt Locker

The Informant!

Inglorious Basterds

Invictus

It's Complicated

Julie & Julia

The Last Station

The Lovely Bones

The Messenger

Nine

Precious

Star Trek

Up

Up in the Air

The Young Victoria

Oddly absent from the list:

Broken Embraces

The Road

Where the Wild Things Are

The White Ribbon