How Is Animation Different From Live Action?

We just turned in a draft of our first animated feature. We were trying to figure out if we're doing the Right Things, or if there's some magic that an animation film is supposed to do that we didn't do.

Of course in an animation script you describe the action much more carefully. In particularly you load in a stack of sight gags.

In animation, of course, you can defy the laws of physics. Wile E. Coyote doesn't fall until he realizes he's run off the cliff. Eyes bug out three feet.

You also have to be a little more careful in your metaphors. When you write "Spongebob is crushed," you might want to specify whether he is crushed emotionally or by a large conch falling on his head.

We had to cut down on our dialog. As live action writers we were writing minute-long scenes that were all dialog. We were asked to reduce the talking and increase the action.

You can't depend on visual acting as much. The human face can form hundreds of expressions. Animators mostly stick to a few basic, exaggerated expressions. A human actor doing a deadpan face can be funny; an animated face doing nothing is rarely funny.

Most subtly, we noticed that the best animation features create their own worlds. FINDING NEMO creates a world of talking fish. THE INCREDIBLES creates a world where superheroes not only exist but are oppressed. MONSTERS, INC. creates the world of the monsters in your closet. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST enters a world of talking teapots and candlesticks.

What else do you find is different between live action writing and great animation writing?

In a Rush

I just finished writing my first screenplay. I need to get it to some people ASAP but I'm afraid they will reject it not because I don't have a great story with compelling characters and engaging dialogue but because I didn't write it professionally. Please advise.

I disagree. If you've just finished writing your first screenplay, you need to set it aside for a little while. Write something else. And then come back and rewrite it.

No professional sends out a first draft.

Beating Procrastination

I waste inordinate amounts of time surfing. The problem, as tech venture capitalist Paul Graham points out, is that surfing looks a lot like working. If you're your own boss, it's worse. You can blow off a whole morning surfing and doing email.

So, Graham now has one computer for work, which he keeps off line, and one computer for email and surfing. That way he knows when he's working and when he's not.

I think I might try that next week, since Hunter's computer is available for the summer.

Young People Doing That Thing They Do

My writer buddy Doug T and I went to see YOUNG PEOPLE F***ING, which of course turns out to be as much romantic comedy as sex comedy. I think had the parliamentarians excoriating it actually seen it, they would have felt it was fairly tame by today's standards. Certainly there's nothing you couldn't air on Showtime or Showcase, and, with the exception of one shot of breasts, possibly nothing you couldn't see on broadcast at 10 pm. If anything, you'd wonder if young women these days really prefer to have sex with their bras on.

What you get, instead, is a rather charming series of vignettes about, yeah, young people involved in various sexual encounters. It's a relationship movie about a first date, two exes having a date, a couple, a pair of friends and a pair of roommates. The stories go in different directions, from happily romantic to bittersweet to mildly messed up.

The actors are some of the most charming people you will see on the screen. And that's always fun.

Doug and I like to story edit movies after we see them. Our criticism would be that the movie doesn't go particularly deep. Maybe it didn't want to, and that's a valid commercial point. I don't know if a deeper movie would have got made as fast or been as entertaining. But if it had combined a little more insight with its superb observation of couples, it could have been great instead of merely très fun.

For example [SPOILERS...]:

The exes are adorable together. They obviously love each other in spite of their protestations that they're "over" each other. But what keeps them apart? Shouldn't we see the parts of their relationship that tore them apart? Could there be flashes of little "let's not go there" moments that they know they have to ignore for the evening to work -- but which make plain why they might not want to pick up their relationship again?

Likewise, the friends: what has kept them from sleeping together? Why has it taken this long for them to get together? The math don't add up. Dude, your best friend is Carly Pope and you haven't tried to jump her bones already?

Which brings up the old casting issue: cast real or cast pretty? YPF chose to cast pretty. I got nothing against pretty. I'd rather watch pretty people in bed, too.

But if you cast a young Janeane Garofalo type in the role of Kris, I might be willing to suspend my disbelief that her best friend had never tried anything.

(Though personally, if I weren't spoken for, I'd probably fall for Janeane G before I fell for Carly P. But that's me.)

Or: establish that they tried this once before. And it was a disaster. Or they've tried this before, many times, and it's never added up to anything more than Friends With Benefits.

Drama is all about obstacles. I felt YPF could have made some of the obstacles a bit bigger.

But for all that, it is an adorable movie. Sexy, funny, sweet and bittersweet.

If you see it with a date, you'll probably get lucky. And honestly, what better reason is there to go to a romantic comedy?

UPDATE: YPF platforms in late August in New York and LA.

C-10 Wavers

My fellow Canadians:

It looks like we have a shot to get the dread Section 120 out of Bill C-10. That's the section that would allow the Minister of Heritage to retroactively yank government funding from an already-made picture by deciding it is "contrary to public policy." It's a dumb idea because it would destroy the business model of the Canadian feature film industry. We could live with a censorship board if we had to; we can't live with retroactive censorship.

There is a movement afoot to define "contrary to public policy" as "illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada." In other words, the taxpayer shouldn't be funding hate films or pornography. I think we can all agree on that, especially as no such film has ever actually been funded by the taxpayer.

If you care about the future of the Canadian film industry, please harass the following parliamentarians:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: pm@pm.gc.ca
Leader of the Opposition, Stephane Dion: Dions@parl.gc.ca
Minister Josee Verner: Verner.J@parl.gc.ca
Minister Jim Flaherty: Flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca
Bill Siksay (NDP): siksab@parl.gc.ca
Jack Layton (NDP leader): laytoj@parl.gc.ca
Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Leader): duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
Maria Minna (Bloc Heritage Critic): minna.m@parl.gc.ca
Denis Coderre (Lib Heritage Critic): coderre.d@parl.gc.ca
Angus, W. David Chair ‐ C ‐ (Alma ‐ Quebec)anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca,
Goldstein, Yoine Deputy Chair ‐ Lib. ‐ (Rigaud – Quebec) goldsy@sen.parl.gc.ca
Banks, Tommy – Lib – gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca
Biron, Michel ‐ Lib. ‐ (Mille Isles ‐ Quebec) bironmi@sen.parl.gc.ca Eyton, John Trevor ‐ C ‐ (Ontario) rokosg@sen.parl.gc.ca
Fox, Francis – Lib – foxf@sen.parl.gc.ca
Harb, Mac ‐ Lib. ‐ (Ontario) harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca
Jaffer, Mobina S.B. ‐ Lib. ‐ (British Columbia) ) jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca
Massicotte, Paul J. ‐ Lib. ‐ (De Lanaudière ‐ Quebec massip@sen.parl.gc.ca
Meighen, Michael A. ‐ C ‐ (St. Marys ‐ Ontario) meighen@sen.parl.gc.ca
Moore, Wilfred P. ‐ Lib. ‐ (Stanhope St. / South Shore ‐ Nova Scotia) moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca
Ringuette, Pierrette ‐ Lib. ‐ (New Brunswick) ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca
Tkachuk, David ‐ C ‐ (Saskatchewan) tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca

Or, in email friendly format:

pm@pm.gc.ca, anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca, goldsy@sen.parl.gc.ca, bironmi@sen.parl.gc.ca, rokosg@sen.parl.gc.ca, harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca, jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca, massip@sen.parl.gc.ca, moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca, meighen@sen.parl.gc.ca, olived@sen.parl.gc.ca, ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca, lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, Verner.J@parl.gc.ca, Flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca, Siksay.B@parl.gc.ca, BelanM@parl.gc.ca, Mourani.Ma@parl.gc.ca, Mulcair.T@parl.gc.ca, Crete.P@parl.gc.ca, McCallum.J@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca, laytoj@parl.gc.ca, Dions@parl.gc.ca, gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca, foxf@sen.parl.gc.ca, coderre.d@parl.gc.ca, minna.m@parl.gc.ca

Here's what I wrote:

Dear Prime Minister:

I am one of the writers of the smash-hit Canadian comedy movie BON COP BAD COP. I'm writing in opposition of Section 120 of Bill C-10.

The proposed section would create a form of backwards censorship that would cripple the Canadian film industry's basic business model. I take it personally, because it would throw me, personally, out of work.

There is a simple solution. Rather than allowing the Minister of Heritage to define "contrary to public policy" on a whim, define it as any unlawful content according to the Canadian Criminal Code.

No one wants to see illegal films funded by the Canadian taxpayer; but no illegal films have been funded by the taxpayer. On the other hand I hope even the most socially conservative politicians will recognize that throwing an entire industry out of work is bad business and bad politics.

Yours very truly,

Alex Epstein

For more info, go to the WGC press release (PDF).

Structure

There are two kinds of story structure. One matters a lot more than the other.

Usually when execs talk about structure, they mean act structure. They might say the first act needs to get up to speed sooner, or the act four out is a rebeat (the same beat as an earlier beat). 

Usually when I talk about structure, I mean the elements of the story. Who is the character, what is his opportunity/problem/goal, what are the obstacles he faces, what are the stakes, what is the jeopardy? The structure I'm talking about includes who is the villain, the love interest, the intimate opponent.

These are the real bones of the story. 

Both kinds of story structure are relevant. You can't get around act outs in TV. But the second kind of structure takes more experience to see. When I work on a story, I have shapes in my head. I couldn't tell you exactly what that sentence means, but I have shapes in my head and if I change the elements of the story the shapes change. And when I make a breakthrough, the shape of the story feels better, stronger, sharper, smoother. Or something.

You can work at a story from the outside in. You can tighten up that first act. It is rarely as effective as working at a story from the inside out. Don't tighten up the first act. Work on the character more; or do a better job convincing us of his problem. If the act four out is a rebeat it's because you haven't increased the jeopardy, or revealed the real antagonist, or uncovered a previously hidden obstacle. 

If the structure is all there, the writing is easy. If it's not there, massaging the scenes will only get you so far. 

Try to learn to see the underlying structure of stories. Nothing to do with the page numbers; it's all about the rush and tumble of the characters' desires. See the shape of it, and mold that. A great storyteller is like a sculptor in clay, molding and kneading the story until it's right. Once it's in the right shape, it's a matter of mere application to decorate the pot and apply heat.

Boiling It Back Down

I'm rewriting one of the episodes of the pay cable series I'm developing. I have some excellent notes on it from the guys in my brief writing room; and I have several months of perspective. The episode seems kind of fragmented now; I'm trying to get it back on track.

I went straight at it, first, but got lost in the scenes. Then I tried making an outline out of the script -- leaving the sluglines but replacing all the scenes with thumbnail descriptions of those scenes. Still felt lost.

What I'm doing now is boiling the whole episode back down to elemental stories. What does this character want? What are the obstacles to her getting it? Then I'm breaking those stories again, from first principles. What are the essential steps of this story? Which act does each step belong in?

When I've got stories and steps that make sense, I'll weave them together back into a new outline. Only then will I go to pages.

And only then will I consult my old draft. Probably many or most of the steps in the new draft will be scenes I've already got in the old draft. They may be in new places but they may only need tweaking. Some of the scenes will be new. Some of the old scenes won't make it into the new draft.

I don't usually take a script apart like this; I don't usually have to. (If I'd structured the script properly in the first place, I wouldn't have to.) But when I feel I've lost the thread, tinkering and tweaking will only waste time. Walking a script back to first principles, though hard, is a great way to get back on track.

"Spring for your Script" - Quebec Only

Ah to be young again, and fancy free. And get free money from government agencies:

For Quebec WGC Members Only

Sprint for your script: Call for submissions - 10th edition

SODEC invites young screenwriters to enter SPRINT FOR YOUR SCRIPT !

For the tenth edition of this annual competition, screenwriters are asked to submit a first draft script with dialogue for a short drama or animated film (maximum length: 12 minutes) before August 11th, 2008.

MORE THAN A CONTEST!
The selected screenwriters will enjoy the benefits of participating in a truly unique screenwriter’s workshop. They will be paired off with an advisory screenwriter and will participate in intensive individual and group work sessions in the charming atmosphere of the Old Dawes Brewery at the Guy-Descary cultural complex in Lachine, from mid-September to the beginning of October
2008.

Grand Prix consists of a $55,000 investment in production by SODEC and more.

Special Prizes
- the $1,000 CBC/WGC Prize for the Best English Language Script
- the SARTEC Special Mention consisting of a $1,000 prize for a French script
- the Prix coup de coeur du public consisting of a $1, 000 prize
-
In addition, the finalists’ seven scripts will be read publicly by professional actors. This event will be held during the 37th annual Festival du Nouveau Cinéma de Montréal (October 8th-19th).
The event will be followed by a cocktail a presentation of the awards.

Eligibility

Writers must:
• Be between the ages of 18 and 35 (i.e. not have turned 36 at the time of script submission deadline)
• Be a resident of Québec for at least two years
• Be pursuing on a professional writing career (high school, college and university undergraduate students are not eligible)
• Have had a script produced and publicly released or broadcast (proof required)

For more information about eligibility for Sprint for Your Script, please visit the WGC website and click on the Sprint for Your Script icon on the home page.

I'm not complaining, mind. My network just ordered two new scripts on the urban metaphysical series I'm developing for them.