John August

QandA

Reading scripts at the WGA library

Education, QandA

I’ve been going through the past Q&As, and another place to read scripts for free is is the [library at the Writers Guild](http://www.wgfoundation.org/library.aspx), on Fairfax and 3rd in Los Angeles. While you do have to read the scripts there, it’s a pleasant environment, and the staff is very helpful.

–Blake
Hollywood, CA

I didn’t even know this library existed, so thanks for writing in. Another great resource is the [Margaret Herrick Library](http://www.oscars.org/mhl/generalinfo.html) on La Cienega, which is run by the Academy. In addition to screenplays, it has clipping files on many topics, and would be the ideal first stop for any research into Hollywood history.

Working, but what’s the next step?

Psych 101, QandA

I live in Los Angeles and have become a frequenter of your website.  Tonight I had an early dinner at the CPK within the Beverly Center and I thought I recognized you there.  I wanted to come over, say hello and let you know how much I appreciated your work both on screen and on this website.  However, I also wanted to respect your privacy.

I am a newly-working screenwriter.  Mostly indie stuff, a couple of writer-for-hire and low-budg re-write jobs; and I’m proud to say I just sold my first script to an indie company.  I just wanted to a) thank you for your site; and b) ask if you could give any advice for writers in my situation.  Guys who pay the bills with writing, but are not yet repped, or working on any huuuge deals.  What a realistic next step could be….

–Joe Wehinger
Los Angeles

Right now, you’re exactly where a lot of readers wish they could be: working in Hollywood. Based on what I could [glean from IMDb](http://imdb.com/name/nm1143055/), you’ve made a short that won awards, and you’re working on one or two low-budget movies. It’s a very good beginning.

There’s no one perfect next step, but over the next year I’d recommend you do the following:

1. Decide who you want to be. An indie filmmaker like [Sofia Coppola](http://imdb.com/name/nm0001068/)? A top-shelf screenwriter like [Scott Frank](http://imdb.com/name/nm0291082/)? Or a multi-media industry like [Kevin Smith](http://imdb.com/name/nm0003620/)? No, you’re not allowed to say “all of the above,” because none of these people would have gotten where they are if they had tried to be someone else. It’s fine to pick anyone as an aspirational figure, as long as it helps you focus on how you should be spending your time.

2. Make sure you’re doing your absolute best work. This sounds obvious, but when you’re on your fifth rewrite for producers you don’t respect, it’s hard to put forth 100%. Do it anyway. Trust that the universe will in some way reward you for that brilliant scene, even if the movie never gets made, and the check bounces.

3. Work on getting an agent and/or manager. No, it’s not crucial, especially if you’re trying the indie route. But regardless of your path, they can take your short and your scripts and hopefully set up meetings with more studios, producers and production companies. I don’t often recommend query letters, but in your case they might be a good idea. Basically, the letter would say that (a) you won these awards; (b) you’re working for these producers; and (c) you’re looking for an agent to represent you because you have just written such-and-such project.

4. Continue to write, obviously. Seek a golden balance between art and commerce: write the most commercial story that you care very passionately about.

And yes, that probably was me at CPK. Thank you for trusting your instincts and letting me gorge myself in peace.

I obviously enjoy talking with other writers — that’s why I set up the site, and why I speak at lots of different events and conferences. But it’s always weird when a stranger comes up to me in a non-film environment. After witnessing first-hand all the crap that actual celebrities have to deal with, I’ve come to cherish my anonymity. I’ll do publicity when it’s appropriate, but I hope to always be able to fade into the background. So, thanks for letting me.

Did I ever watch the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?

Charlie, QandA

I remember reading on IMDb, that you told Tim Burton that you had never seen the original [Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory](http://imdb.com/title/tt0067992/). I don’t think I have read anything on your site about that subject. Have you in fact seen the original Willy Wonka? What do you advise on that anyway? And is Charlie a remake or sequel or neither?

–Richard
Gold Coast, Australia

First off, I’m hesitant to say too much, because I don’t want to spoil anything about the new movie.

It’s true that when Tim Burton asked me to write [Charlie and the Chocolate Factory](http://imdb.com/title/tt0367594/), my first question was whether I should watch the original movie. (It’s not like I was raised off the grid by hippie survivalists, but somehow I had never seen it.) Tim urged me not to watch it until after I handed in the first draft, which I think was wise.

Halfway into my second draft, I finally watched the 1971 Gene Wilder version, and it was jarring. No disrespect to the movie, which is obviously beloved by a generation of my peers, but it was visually and narratively very, very different from Roald Dahl’s book. True, most of the main story elements were still there, such as the rotten children and the chocolate river. But some of the choices made – killing off Charlie’s father, adding Slugworth, the acid trip on the pink boat — wouldn’t have been my choices.

And in some ways, it’s great that the original movie did its own thing, because it gives the new movie a chance to use some of the overlooked parts of Dahl’s book. (But no, I won’t divulge which parts those are.)

Although the press will inevitably call this a remake of Willy Wonka, it should properly be called a new version of Roald Dahl’s book. I honestly think that if the 1971 movie had never been made, we would still be making this one. It’s testimony to the timelessness of Dahl’s books that they remain so popular today.

‘A’ scenes and ‘B’ scenes

Formatting, QandA

What are “A Scenes and B Scenes”?

–Jim
Rancho Santa Fe, CA

In film production, A’s and B’s are used to squeeze extra scenes or pages between two pre-existing numbers. Otherwise, you would have to renumber and redistribute all of the relevant scenes or pages, which would be confusing for everyone, and mean a lot more photocopying.

If you need to insert a page between 95 and 96, the new page is labeled 95A. If you need to insert three pages, they would be labeled 95A, 95B and 95C. The tricky part comes when you need to insert a second round of new pages, for instance, two new pages between 95 and 95A. Technically, the new sequence would go 95, 95AA, 95AB, 95A, 95B. In practice, however, this gets too confusing for everyone. In my opinion, you’re better off just generating new pages to replace the current 95A and 95B, which means the sequence would run 95, 95A, 95B, 95C, 95D.

As a kindness to the production team, it’s a good idea to include a memo with any production revisions, listing which pages have changed, and clarifying page order in case there’s any possible confusion.

I learned to do scene numbers the same way as page numbers, so scene 47A would come between scenes 47 and 48. [Katterli Frauenfelder](http://imdb.com/name/nm0292390/), the 1st AD on Big Fish and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, prefers to do it differently: 47, A48, 48. I chafed at first, but it makes sense.

During production, each new camera setup is given a sequential letter. For instance, the master shot might be labeled Sc. 47, while the first closeup is labeled Sc. 47A. Subsequent angles become 47B, 47C, etc. If the scene itself were numbered 47A, this would obviously get confusing. But Sc. A47A is unambiguous.

In my experience, [Final Draft](http://www.finaldraft.com) does a pretty good job handling both scene and page revisions, but don’t let it make the decisions for you. By thinking ahead, you can almost always simplify the process and keep your screenplay more reader-friendly.