• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Does anyone agree with this tutorial on screenwriting and genre?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Fh9T3yJUU

He says that the biggest reason why most writers fail is that they use the wrong genre to develop their ideas. I found this curious since I wrote a script which I intented to be a horror, but people told me that I had premise that belong in an action film.

However, since when does a great story need to be labelled with a genre? It seems to me that there are only two real genres. Comedy and drama/tragedy. Let's take Die Hard for example. It's an action movie. It's about armed robbers who take a building hostage. However, United 93 is about terrorists who take planes hostage, and that is considered a drama.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop also uses this premise and it's a comedy. So why does he say that writers use the wrong genre to develop an idea, when the Die Hard premise has not only been used in action movies, but also in true story dramas, as well as comedies? That's just one premise example, but there are others as well. Fail-Safe is a thriller and Dr. Strangelove is a comedy. You get the idea.

I don't see what he means exactly, but he means something since I have been told myself I misused a genre, so what is the difference between using the genre you want to develop an idea right, as oppose to doing it wrong?
 
You’re wrong. There aren’t just two genres.

Action.
Adventure.
Comedy.
Horror.
Thriller.
Drama.
Sci-Fi.
Fantasy.
Historical.
Romance.
Western.

Of all of those, my personal opinion is that Comedy is the least like an ‘actual’ genre, as it often follows the structure of another genre, only with jokes. But comedy does still exist as a genre in its own right.

But a story fits into whatever genre it fits. You can force a story to follow another genre, but the initial idea for any story, is of a particular genre, just because it is. You don’t need to worry about the genre. Just write the story.


...I wrote a script which I intented to be a horror, but people told me that I had premise that belong in an action film...

You wrote the script? It was finished? There should be no question as to which genre it was. Was it a horror or an action?
 
That's true there is more. I guess I just felt that genre was not as important as long as you have a good story to tell. However maybe I'm wrong since John Truby, in the video, says that most writers do choose the wrong genre to develop their idea. So perhaps audiences are very particular about genre when it comes to premises. He said that 99% of scripts fail because writers pick the wrong genre so since I cannot tell what mine was, there is a good chance I did that as well.

I asked some friends about which of those genres mine is and they told me neither, and that it was thriller.
 
Last edited:
He's saying that a genre is something extremely developed and that you must stick to those rules.

It's like saying "if you want to go out for a drink, don't go to the mall, go to the bar".
 
I kind of agree with what he's saying but I don't think it came out as clearly as he meant. Take for instance, the "western". The 'Western Formula' is a variant of 'flawed/bullied boy stands up to father/authority'. In it the "town folk are menaced by some powerful figure. A strange lone figure(s) enters and destablizes the situation by providing small assistance. The conflict shifts between the loner and the powerful figure. The loner gets a severe smack down. The love interest comes in and the loner rallies. He manages to unite the town but they are still afraid. He must face the power figure's legions and is aided by the town in the end. He leaves the love interest or dies. [traditional]" Depending on the story, certain elements are often switched up a bit--water rights, land rights, cattle rights, oil rights. Bad guy(s) turn hero(s). Hero(s) gets the girl(s) and/or lives [upbeat version]. etc. (NB: if you see shades of Avatar, Spiderman, etc. in there, you're right.)

Anyone who's watched westerns understands this 'pattern'. The creative side of me says step outside of the boundaries. The side that thinks making a movie that sells pushes back. As Truby points out, Hollywood is conservative in regard to formulas that have made money.

The gladiator or sword-and-sandal genre of the 1960s was characterized by
• a musclar, mostly naked man in the lead role, performing superhuman feats
• exotic heroines and femme fatales in league with dastardly villains
• sensual costumes and lavish sets
• stories and characters drawn from ancient history and myth
• lurid scenes of bondage and torture
• elaborate storylines
The movies of the DC/Marvel comics of today pretty much the same thing. Lot of shirtless, muscular guys being wantonly abused by women and villains yet save the day--Hugh Jackman, Chris Pratt, etc. Instead of ancient history and myth (well, there is Thor another gratuitous shirtless scene) we have comic books.

The danger is when some genre or story is too well known, it risks losing viewership to flip it too much. The revamped "Star Trek" had to sell itself to diehard Trekkies. If it had strayed too far from the canon and expectations, it would have failed. Some storylines wear out their welcome--Rocky 3, Expendables 3, etc.

Truby's point about mixing genres is a useful one. The spy genre is fairly well known. Indiana Jones cleverly shifts from 'spy' to 'archeologist' and adds in some fantasy. Similarly, the mystery/sleuth genre is fairly established. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" shifted it to a younger audience in a fantasy setting. As he said the "skin" laid over the top was different but the inside was the same.

I don't agree that most writers fail because the choose the wrong genre. My perception is that most fail because they either choose to defy the expectations of the genre or they don't fully understand the genre they are attempting to write. "Hercules in New York" failed, while "Crocodile Dundee" succeeded in showing the "loner out of place in a strange town" (a western rather than gladiatorial motif). On the other hand, "Rocky" was successful because it utilized the gladiatorial motif in a contemporary way. Anyway, just my $0.02.
 
Okay thanks. I never really applied genres to my scripts before. I just new if I wanted them to be dramatic, or comedic. But now that he says that, perhaps I should pay really close attention to what genre my stories would fit into, and what audience I am trying to appeal to.

My current feature script, I think would be a combination of perhaps four genres: thriller/crime/drama/horror. Not sure if they are in that order exactly, but perhaps I should be more specific. Like if I am incorporating elements of horror, perhaps I should have the killers where certain types of masks and outfits, that would be of the horror genre perhaps? Perhaps genre is more than just words to describe the tone of the plot, and I need to incorporate certain types of costumes and certain types of characters and all that.

The man in the tutorial also says later in the full version of the interview, that when you submit your script for feedback, that you should submit the treatment instead, because most pros who give criticism that writers are looking for, can spot the problems in the treatment, so there is no need to write a full script before submitting it for evaluation. Do you think that's true as well?
 
Last edited:
... My current feature script, I think would be a combination of perhaps four genres: thriller/crime/drama/horror. Not sure if they are in that order exactly, but perhaps I should be more specific. Like if I am incorporating elements of horror, perhaps I should have the killers where certain types of masks and outfits, that would be of the horror genre perhaps? Perhaps genre is more than just words to describe the tone of the plot, and I need to incorporate certain types of costumes and certain types of characters and all that.
Nothing you've shared in your posts about this film suggest horror. It's more than costumes and characters, it's locations and expected behaviors as well.

Horror - an individual finds himself in the eye of the storm where catastrophic events happen around him. He seems unable to stop it and learns he is the source. It often calls upon sacrifice to stop a supernatural (or superhuman) menace.

Thriller - Catastrophic events begin to happen. It becomes a race to find the cause and the solution. Often main characters narrowly avoid becoming victims.

Crime - A morality story with an ostensible crime and the subsequent cat-and-mouse between the pursuer (often good but not always) and the pursued. Often the end has a clear resolution of the moral dilemma.

Drama is a far more overarching term suggesting "a story where events give rise to conflicts and the characters must find the resources to bring it to a resolution."

Unless you have a supernatural element in your script, it will not meet the criteria for horror. To be clear, supernatural doesn't mean ghosts, etc. Here I mean "beyond normal". Serial killers, for instance, that seem to survive and go on to kill after taking mortal blows that would have killed normal people. When a thug picks on a serial killer, the audience's mind expects to see the thug dead in the next scene. I use it in the sense of 'unstoppable' though often it is stopped or at least made dormant again. However, there is always a personal cost in horror.

Looking over those quick descriptions, you can see areas of overlap where you could mix them. But as Truby points out and I would emphasize, it is done with forethought and planning, not as an afterthought, "Oh, what genre should this be?". If you can't describe a genre, then you're probably going to need to do some research before trying to write it.

"Silence of the Lambs", "Constantine" and "Angel Heart" come to mind as examples that combine all three of those genres (horror, crime, thriller). Unless your script parallels these, you probably only have a crime/thriller.
 
Okay thanks. But how come The Last House on the Left, The Silence of the Lambs, and the Scream films are considered horror, even though the killers are mortal? I guess I considered mine a combination of horror since the murder scenarios are done in a Silence of the Lambs or Scream, horror type fashion.
 
Last edited:
It does not matter...

To sell you need to write a great screenplay that has a large market that has a very good chance of generating large profits for the production studio, you often need luck as well.

Having good connections obviously helps as well. But even without good connections, a great script should be picked up and championed by a screenwriting contest such as the Nicholl Fellowship - that will attract agents and offers.
 
Okay thanks. But if I am planning on directing the script myself, does entering it a contest even get you anything since, a lot of producers who buy scripts want to pick their own directors?
 
Best to start with a short H44. You know this already. Write a good short script, and film that.

99.99% of people's first short will actually not be very good.

Your film making will get better with practice and experience - so just get out there and film. You know all this.

There is no point in you writing a feature screenplay that you want to direct when you have no filming experience. Unless the script is ultra-micro budget. Be realistic. With 5,000+ posts, you should stop posting and get filming. We shot a short a few weeks ago with a talent of one, and a crew of one - so just two people. I know your location is far from great for securing crew/talent but there is always a way. Get filming. Stop the procrastination, believe in yourself.

Overcoming Procrastination
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newHTE_96.htm

Good luck. :)
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. But I already did a short, and have done a lot of practice on my own, as well help several others with their shorts. I have learned a lot already. I am not saying I am going to make this script now, right away, but I am writing it in my free time since it will be ready for later. I have been trying to make my own shorts for the past two years and will continue to post adds for them. But since no one is responding to the adds so far, I figure why not write a script in the mean time, to get something done. I am also shooting a lot of my own footage for practice in the meantime to.

I showed a rough draft of my script to an actor I know in Vancouver, and he liked it and showed it to others. He said he and crew from his film school would be glad to do it if I come down there to shoot it. I don't want to miss that opportunity or at least wait too long, and I may do it by next year. I know it's soon after not making as many shorts but I this is one opportunity a filmmaker does not want to miss. I mean I got no interest in people in my city wanting to make shorts, and I got interest in Vancouver. So logic dictates that I should fly their and do a project. But I do not want to fly all the way there for one short, it has to be a big project that they are interested in, to be worth it. People in the business, including actors seem to take a feature much, much, much more seriously than a short. They seem to take filmmakers much more seriously if they are willing to make a feature, compared to shorts only.

But I have been practicing about three or more times a week in my free time, and not just posting on this site, and nothing more. I told myself by the time I was 30, I was going to make a feature, if it hasn't happened yet. Well I am 31 almost, and still hasn't happened, even with all the practice and experience on other people's projects. Perhaps the only way to fulfill a goal is to actually do it. But I won't do it, unless I have the right talent behind me. A lot of directors are acting as DP, and camera operator as well, and they are doing ADR after, since no sound recording people are on the shoots. But I am not going to fall down that path and will not move forward unless I have the right people for the job.
 
Last edited:
Okay, that's good to hear.

Micro-budget is the best way to do it. But a feature is a big undertaking.

We shot a feature but shot it 90% in our own place. So that kept the costs hugely down. Even then filming took us 10 days. Post production took months.

Honestly, I think it's better to stick to the shorts until you have a lot of experience.

With an award winning short, you could apply for a Canadian film grant - that would then give you $$$ to do a very low budget feature well.

A film school friend saying they will help out is great, but what about the other talent and crew.

If unpaid, crew or talent may simply not turn up or only turn up for the first few days. That could kill your shooting. Locations, permits etc are all expensive $$$$$.

That's why people stick to shorts.

Anyway, it's your choice. Regardless of what you decide, I wish you luck and hope it goes well.

Also do watch this show: two folks given their chance to direct a feature and the highs and lows they encounter...

The Chair
http://www.starz.com/originals/thechair
 
Last edited:
Back
Top