John August

Search Results for: logline

Pitching Star Trek

Television, Treatments

[Several](http://betweenthepagesblog.typepad.com/between-the-pages-blog/2011/01/cool-find-gene-roddenberrys-original-star-trek-pitch.html) [blogs](http://blastr.com/2011/01/found-gene-roddenberrys-original-1964-pitch-for-star-trek.php) have recently linked to this [1964 pitch document](http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/1_Original_Series/Star_Trek_Pitch.pdf) by Gene Roddenberry laying out his initial vision for Star Trek. It’s great reading for anyone interested in the Star Trek universe or TV writing in general.

Documents like this are still common in television. I’ve heard them called different things: formats, treatments, show outlines, write-ups, pitch documents.

Whatever you call them, they generally cover a few topics:

1. What the show is (logline, genre, themes, similarities to existing shows)
2. What happens in typical episodes
3. The main characters
4. The primary locations/sets
5. Special opportunities and challenges
6. Future episode ideas

In the [Library](http://johnaugust.com/library), you can see similar write-ups for D.C., Alaska and Ops.

In the case of Star Trek, it’s not clear at what point in the process this document was written. Generally, pitching a show is something you do in person, with writer(s) meeting with executives. If the pitch goes well, you might leave a document like this behind — in which case it’s called, quite unimaginatively, a leave-behind.

Executives like leave-behinds because it gives them something they can use to pitch the show to their bosses. Agents and seasoned writers caution against them, because it gives executives specifics with which to find fault.

So instead of a leave-behind, you might send something like this over a few days later, writing up the pitch so everyone agrees what kind of show was discussed in the room, including issues that came up. Ideally, you would want your deal closed before emailing this over, but everything in television happens with a sense of rushed deadlines, so that’s hardly a given.

Looking through Roddenberry’s Star Trek write-up, it’s tempting to focus on all the things that changed. The Enterprise is the Yorktown. The captain is neither Pike or Kirk, but Robert M. April. Spock has red skin. Bones is Bones, but his real name is Phillip Boyce.

But it’s more helpful to marvel on how much of the vision and philosophy for Star Trek shows up in this early incarnation:

> The “Parallel Worlds” concept is the key to the STAR TREK format.

> It means simply that our stories deal with plant and animal life, plus people, quite similar to that on Earth. Social evolution will also have interesting points of similarity to ours. There will be differences, of course, ranging from the subtle to the boldly dramatic, out of which comes much of our color and excitement. (And, of course, none of this prevents an occasional “far our” tale thrown in for surprise and change of pace.)

A quick read through the proposed storylines gives a very strong sense of what the show would become. Some of these ideas became episodes; most didn’t. But they all feel like they could be part of the show.

You can read the whole thing [here](http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/1_Original_Series/Star_Trek_Pitch.pdf).

On Dogfooding, and scratching your own itch

Directors, Follow Up, Psych 101

Several readers have written in to ask whether we have plans for Chrome or Firefox versions of [Less IMDb](http://quoteunquoteapps.com/less-imdb). We don’t — not because we have anything against those browsers. We just don’t use them nearly as much as Safari. We built the extension to address our own needs, and shared it with others because they might like it.

When you make something that you yourself use, that’s called [dogfooding](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dogfooding+(to+dogfood)), a contraction of “eating your own dogfood.” That’s developer-speak, but it’s a mindset screenwriters would do well to appropriate.

Aspiring screenwriters will often throw a few loglines at me and ask which one they should write. My answer is always, “The one you would pay money to see.”

That’s dogfooding’s close cousin, scratching your own itch. You’re writing movies you wish existed.

Looking at successful filmmakers — in particular, writer-directors — it’s pretty clear who is doing this. Tarantino makes movies to fill a special shelf at his fantasy video store. Wes Anderson makes movies his own characters would dissect over canapes.

If you have more mainstream taste, great. Embrace that. Scratch your own itch. But forget about “commercial” or “high concept.” If you’re writing a movie you yourself wouldn’t buy a ticket to see, you’re wasting everyone’s time.

Are studios open on Saturdays?

Film Industry, QandA

questionmarkWhen trying to sell a screenplay, does it have to be accompanied by a logline and/or a synopsis? Or will just handing someone a script suffice?

And I would also like to know the general work hours of movie studios. I want to maybe personally hand my work to someone at a studio since I am uncertain of whether or not they read unsolicited work; however, I have a very unflexible work schedule, and I usually get off late. Are studios open on Saturdays?

— Evelyn
New York City

These are the kinds of questions that reflect almost no understanding of the film industry — which is fine. You’re brand new to all of this, obviously. I would ask similarly uninformed questions about lawn bowling, textile manufacture or warp drives: using the lingo without really understanding what it meant.

So I want to answer your questions while simultaneously explaining why they’re awkwardly wrong questions to ask.

Written loglines and synopses aren’t included with a script, unless you’re submitting it for some competition that requires it. A screenwriter needs to be able to distill the premise and story of her script mostly so she can pitch it: “It’s a road-trip comedy about a transgendered rabbit and a zombie turtle.”

“Just handing someone a script” is doom. No one wants to read your script. No one. If you doubt me, reverse the roles. A stranger comes up to you and thrusts a 120-page document in your hands, along with a promise-slash-threat that they will call and ask you what you thought. Unless you had reason to believe that the script or the writer was genuinely worth your time — or that saying no would have a significant social cost — you’d find a way to get out of it.

When screenwriters move to Los Angeles, the first year is spent finding people willing to read their scripts, generally for an even exchange: I’ll read yours if you’ll read mine.

The Saturday issue
======
Movie studios aren’t what you think they are. They don’t have a front desk where scripts come in. They have fairly typical Monday-Friday schedules, but that’s irrelevant.

Producers, managers, agents and filmmakers bring projects to specific executives at the studio. Paula Producer may have good relationships with three executives at Imaginary Pictures, but for this nautical action drama, she picks the guy who sails.

Getting a movie made, and getting a script set up, relies on knowing the people involved. That’s why just landing your script somewhere physically within the halls of a studio isn’t worth much. Studios have readers — I used to be one — but they’re largely there to help executives by writing coverage and reading the least-promising material that comes in.

There’s far too much mythology about “what studio readers are looking for.” Generally, they’re looking for an exit. They have very little influence on which scripts get purchased or made.

Evelyn, your goal as an aspiring writer should be to convince producers, managers, agents and filmmakers that you’re a great writer with great material. You do this by getting read; you get read by making relationships in the industry. That’s also where you’ll pick up a better understanding of How It All Works.

What does “execution dependent” mean?

Big Fish, Directors, Film Industry, Genres, QandA

questionmarkI’ve been taking a pitch and treatment around to producers, and people are responding very well to it–but one note I keep getting is that the idea is very “execution dependent.”

What exactly does this mean? It’s a high-concept comedy idea, easy to sum up in a logline. So what makes one high-concept idea more execution-dependent than another? Or is this a euphemism for “not high-concept enough”?

I’m planning to spec it out anyway, but I’d love to get a handle on what makes an idea more or less execution-proof. I’ve read your (excellent) answer about the [family of robots](http://johnaugust.com/archives/2003/good-writing-vs-the-idea), but that seemed to be about high concept and low concept, while this is something about the idea itself.

— Andrew
Brooklyn

“Execution dependent” means that the best version of the movie is a hit, while a mediocre incarnation is worth vastly less. It’s not a diss. Most films that win Academy Awards are execution dependent, as are many blockbusters.

For example, Slumdog Millionaire is completely execution dependent. If it didn’t fire on all cylinders, you would never have heard of it. It would have been another ambitious indie failure.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is also extremely execution dependent. There have been countless movies with adventurers seeking treasure, but the combination of elements in Raiders just clicked. If Raiders were twenty percent less awesome, it wouldn’t have a place in film history.

Other examples I can think of: Juno, Pan’s Labyrinth, The Dark Knight, The Piano, Titanic, Silence of the Lambs, Babe, Fargo, The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Usual Suspects, Sling Blade, Se7en. Some of these are high concept, others aren’t. But in each case, the film’s relative success is largely a factor of how well-made it was.

Here’s a good test for whether a project is execution dependent: How many different directors could you imagine making it?

If there are five or fewer directors on your list, that’s a highly execution dependent project. And that can be a stumbling block. For Big Fish, the studio was willing to make it with Steven Spielberg or Tim Burton. Get one of them, and the studio will make the movie. Otherwise, it’s turnaround.

Many films are much less execution dependent. Consider Paul Blart: Mall Cop, or Obsessed. I haven’t seen either movie, but instinct tells me that the list of possible directors for each was much longer. Neither film needed to be perfect in order to succeed. Rather, they needed to be marketable. Both were, much to their credit.

From a studio’s perspective, there is some safety in picking movies that “anyone could direct.” You’re less likely to hit a home run creatively, but you’re also more likely put runners on base.

When a studio or producer trots out the phrase “execution dependent,” that may be a euphemism for a couple of things they’re not saying:

1. “I like it, but it would have to be perfect, and we mess up movies right and left.”
2. “I can’t think of five directors who could do it.”
3. “I can imagine getting fired over this movie.”
4. “I might buy it as a spec.”
5. “I hate the idea and I’m just trying to be nice.”

I hope it’s not the last one. Good luck with the spec.