John August

John

Price of Persia, original screenplay

Prince of Persia, Projects

Jordan Mechner has posted the [original screenplay for Prince of Persia](http://jordanmechner.com/blog/2010/10/pop-orig-screenplay/), which better reflects the movie he and I hoped to make back when we set up the project in 2004.

I didn’t do any real writing on PoP — my hands never touched the keyboard — but I worked with Jordan extensively on the pitch, outline and first few drafts of the project. My involvement essentially ceased after this 2005 draft, when I turned my attention to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The Nines. Jordan and I also cowrote Ops, a pilot for Fox which you can read in the [Library](http://johnaugust.com/library).

You’ll notice many story and structural changes between this draft and the finished film. One of the biggest is in the opening: the movie adds backstory setting up Dastan as a fair-minded orphan adopted by the king. I prefer the original, which let him be the reckless gambler with no real responsibility, since he was third in line to the throne.

It’s the difference between Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, and sets a very different tone for the story.

You can check out the script and discussion on [Jordan’s blog](http://jordanmechner.com/blog/2010/10/pop-orig-screenplay/).

Oblivio Accebit from The Nines

Projects, The Nines

questionmarkHaving an “Oblivio Accebit” spiral poster would mean countless things to me. How can I obtain one, boss? I’ll do anything.

poster ryan reynolds— @josephsaid

We only printed one. It’s either discarded or in a storage locker somewhere.

But if you’d like to print your own, here’s a link to [the original Photoshop file](http://ja-vincent.s3.amazonaws.com/accebit.psd). Warning: It’s big (6.9MB).

Angles, spacing and monikers

Formatting, QandA, Television, Words on the page

questionmarkThree quick questions:

(a) I was reading over a pilot example, and I saw a lot of angle descriptions, camera descriptions, etc. I thought that was a big no-no: don’t describe angles or try to “direct” via your script. Is that less a concern these days? Or less a concern when writing for TV than film?

(b) Ditto the spacing. I was under the impression that TV scripts had to be double-spaced, all dialogue in caps, etc. Is that not true for pilots?

(c) There is already a writer working on film/TV with my name (Joshua Siegal). I’m thinking of going with J. Howard Siegal. Do I need to get registered with the writer’s guild and such with that name? Is it a good/bad idea to find a unique name to write under?

— Josh

(a) Some screenwriters refer to the camera a lot. It’s not wrong, but it can annoy directors. I try to avoid mentioning angles and camera movements unless it’s very important. As an alternative, I use “we” —

RISING THROUGH THE CHIMNEY, we reveal Kruchkov.

He pulls the pin on a grenade. Drops it with a smile.

— and you should know that some people hate “we.” I think it reads better, but to each his own.

(b) The only way to know how a show is formatted is to read an actual script from the series. Single-camera TV shows are generally formatted like feature films, single-space. Multi-camera shows (sitcoms) are double-space. But there are exceptions, so never assume.

(c) Screenwriter names are not regulated the way actor names are, but yes, it’s a good idea to have a unique moniker. For example, there is already another [aspiring John August](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2004/my-namesake-also-a-screenwriter).

How to write romance

Genres, QandA

questionmarkI’m writing a romantic movie, but the last days I have been thinking if the story is credible or not. What do I have to do to write a credible romantic story?

— Stefano Vettorazzi Campos
Uruguay

You have to make us care whether the two lead characters end up together, which is really two requirements:

1. **Characters we give a shit about.** They don’t need to be likable, necessarily, but they need to be compelling. We need to be curious about what they’re going to do next.

2. **A credible reason to keep them apart.** This could be almost anything — war, prejudice, a sinking boat — but if we don’t buy it, you’re toast.

I’d argue that #2 is actually more important than #1.

Cast some attractive actors and we’ll want to see them kiss. But I get angry watching romances in which the hurdles are set too low. If there’s nothing stopping the characters from running off to live happily ever after at the midpoint, why bother?