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

How much free rein should I give a screenwriting consultant?

I want to hire a screenwriting consultant and looked around. There is one who read my script who has more experience than the others, so far, but she says she cannot improve things here or there, and that the script is so flawed that the whole story and perhaps even a good amount of the premise will have to be rewritten from scratch.

If this is the best way to go, it's the best, however, if she chooses to add in more characters or more locations, it can become difficult since I wrote a script to fit my budget as best I could, and I don't know if I should allow her to rewrite the whole story. If I tell her no, I cannot make certain changes that she wants because of budget, she may find it difficult to work with me perhaps.

What do you think I should do? Is this her job, and I should continue to let her do it, or should I not give total free rein, and their should be cut offs? Or is that bad and free rein from a pro, is the only way to have a likely great script?
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I have read over that list three times now, and will keep reminding myself. I am just scared of someone stealing the script or something, or even downloading it, that's all. However, if that is not a risk, I will post it after I am done in the next draft I think.
I suspect most would rather read it out of curiosity given the lengthy threads it has generated.

Mainly the issue in the writing I think with me, is that the reader cannot get a logical sense of the characters decision making. Characters have to make decisions here or there, and they are not the same decisions or thoughts that the readers have when they put themselves inside the characters heads. Especially if I want to keep the character a mystery, and even misdirect the reader intentionally, so they can be surprised later. However, my friends and filmmaking collaborators say that the characters decisions and conclusions they come to, are illogical, or not what they would think of. But just because it's not what the reader would think of, does not mean that that particular character would think of that.
That's problem #1. A good writer has the character act believably. It doesn't mean that under duress they can't act erratic or contrary to their nature, but generally all of us have consistent, coherent set of values and beliefs that guide our conduct. CHAOTIC CHOICES = CHAOTIC (read: BAD) Character development.

Audience members identify with the characters on the screen. They will project themselves onto the characters to feel heroic or sometimes release their inner badass. The audience tolerates a bit of deviation from how they think. But go too far and they disconnect. In writing your characters, you should be living through their eyes. It sounds like your characters are rather flat. One is so perfect, no flaws until the end, then he's all psycho. The less real your characters feel, the worse the movie is perceived by viewers. And don't drone on about selling it. Once it's lost, the audience isn't buying.

I have to make it convincing to the reader that the character is suppose to not conclude what they would conclude and make the misdirection intentional and natural, which I am having trouble doing.
I'm sorry to be blunt, that's just bad writing. The strong audience response to misdirection comes when logical choices and actions turn out to be at odds or even lead to the opposite of intended results--to comical or devastating ends.

In order to finish the last draft, or there any books or sites, or tutorials, that talk about ways to create convincing misdirection, specfically? A lot of books and sites talk about writing, but I could use one that gets into the real deep specifics of creating misdirection.
As long as you stay inside your boxes and continue to dig down, there's not much anyone can suggest to help you. You would totally need to re-write your characters to make more natural decisions which is something it sounds like you're not willing to address.

In other threads I also talked about having trouble progressing with the script because of legal technicalities in my story, in which it will come off as amateur if I make laws up so the story will work, so the legal road blocks also put me at a standstill. But I will continue with the new draft as quick as I can.
That's problem #2. Making up rules or contriving events so your story "works" makes it so farfetched it becomes more of a joke than believable. You have to contrive rules only because of problem #1, bad unrealistic behaviors and choices. Be careful that your attempts to look clever don't backfire and have the opposite result.

Before you go any further, I really think you need to sit down and develop profiles of your characters. Deep profiles--their likes, dislikes, ambitions, fears, resources, deficits, appearance, relationships, etc. In some ways, people follow Newton's 1st Law of Motion: "a person will continue to behave in a similar fashion unless acted upon by an outside force." Your story environment and dynamics with other characters cause changes. What are their lives like at the beginning of the film and what are the like in the end? Are they decent folk or slime bags? People flee their fears and seek their pleasures. Those can shift over the course of the story but drive their basic behaviors. If you make your characters the center of your story, then the other pieces will sort themselves out. If you treat them only like sock puppets--needing them to do/say this now to fool the audience--it will become apparent.

I suspect that your consultant's advice spoke to the same issues. In this case, you shouldn't keep altering the means to justify the ends. The "means" chart a course that leads to the ends. I understand that you are struggling with that; every choice seems to be made not because it's right but because it's necessary for events to work out. That's the mindset you need to break out of to free yourself from the boxes.

Let's say you want to check your mail but you see a spider on your front porch. What do you do? Well, it's obvious. In this case, you go out the back door, shimmy up the downspout, run across the roof to leap onto the neighbor's, then jump into his tree to climb down, borrow his bike that you need to chuck over the fence before climbing over it then ride down the alley and around the block to get to the mailbox ... which you find is empty. Now you need to get back inside and ... the spider is gone. Except the door is locked and you left the keys inside, so you decide to break in the front window. Climbing in you notice the spider on your pajama bottoms, panic, rip them off, running around in your boxers. As you can imagine, if real life were like this, it would be a colossal, gnarled plot to avoid the spider on the porch. Maybe in a comedy. A broom, inverted cup or shoe would have done just as well. Removing the spider, capturing the spider, splatting the spider are all elements of misdirection that can have consequences. Avoiding is only one option.

That's how you've been approaching your plot elements. "Well, I'm in the back yard. I know, nobody would think he'd climb the downspot. Now's he's on the roof. Uh, I guess he needs to get down but, wait his neighbor has a tree. But, oh, he needs to jump on to the roof. Well, it's probably not that far." Bad choices lumped on bad choices to fit the circumstances do not improve the story. Except perhaps a comedy.

While flat predictable cartoonish characters can be fun, they are also rigidly stereotypical. They aren't erratic. Characters and their actions are what define your movie, not the elements. The Ring Trilogy is nominally about the ring. It is more about the characters. Seemingly good choices can lead to bad consequences. Sometimes because a person is too rigid, like your perfect lawyer, the results can be all the more devastating.
 
Okay thanks, I will develop character profiles. So if my characters should act logically, and I should keep within a realistic view of legalities, how is a writer suppose to build towards a certain climax, with all that standing in the way? I mean even movies like Die Hard, The French Connection, Bullitt, Strangers of a Train, and The Dark Knight, have the main character making not the most logical decisions (making decisions to serve the action scenes more), but I bet if they did, the movies might end differently or not be as interesting to their fans.

I want to get out of my boxed mindset, I just am trying to figure out how other writers build into interesting climaxes while still following realism. I am also perfectly open to following books. That book I mentioned before, Police Procedure and Investigation: A Guide for Writers, helped a lot, I just couldn't apply it such specific scenarios, which it did not talk about. But I am perfectly open to using what is out there.

Also when it comes to a character making logical decisions, how do you do that, if you want to hide something about the character? For example, if a character you thought was good, you want to turn out to be a villain, then it is difficult to have that characters actions be entirely logical before the reveal, if you want to hide it from the audience. However, perhaps I am going about it wrong, and I should only add surprise twists, if the story is convenient for them?
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks, I will develop character profiles. So if my characters should act logically, and I should keep within a realistic view of legalities, how is a writer suppose to build towards a certain climax, with all that standing in the way? I mean even movies like Die Hard, The French Connection, Bullitt, Strangers of a Train, and The Dark Knight, have the main character making not the most logical decisions (making decisions to serve the action scenes more), but I bet if they did, the movies might end differently or not be as interesting to their fans.
It's about motivations and situations. These choices aren't necessarily about logic but the inherent response based on the character's personality. If you look at those movies, the decisions made reflect the characters responding to situations. Characters can break rules. When they do, there are consequences. Often the attempt to avoid accepting responsibility for consequences is what drives the descent (anti-hero) and frequent destruction (antagonist). The hero, accepts the responsibility, is punished for it (atonement), then usually emerges victorious (often avenged).

Die Hard, his motive is to save his wife and get out alive. All his actions are motivated by those ideas.
French Connection: While Doyle shooting a fleeing criminal in the back led to complaints at that time, I think most audience members (including officers) would sadly accept it without question. Doyle is confronted about his behavior and eventually kills his confronter. In the end, he presumably shoots himself (atonement).
As for problems in the other films, humans are not always logical, but they certainly are largely consistent except under extreme stress. When a person behaves opposite their nature, something is causing it. Good writers and actors are students of human behavior.

I want to get out of my boxed mindset, I just am trying to figure out how other writers build into interesting climaxes while still following realism. I am also perfectly open to following books. That book I mentioned before, Police Procedure and Investigation: A Guide for Writers, helped a lot, I just couldn't apply it such specific scenarios, which it did not talk about. But I am perfectly open to using what is out there.
What is your story really about? The lawyer's fall from grace. The question is what precipitates that fall? You can keep some of your elements, like I suggested earlier, but it's the way your characters respond that is key. If you want to keep the DNA evidence, it needs to be introduced in a plausible way that would be routinely encountered by standard procedure. (realism) How it's treated/acted upon by your character(s) is what makes it non-standard. (build to climax) Why they act that way is driven by their motivations. If you've done your character study, you know how and why they would react.

Also when it comes to a character making logical decisions, how do you do that, if you want to hide something about the character? For example, if a character you thought was good, you want to turn out to be a villain, then it is difficult to have that characters actions be entirely logical before the reveal, if you want to hide it from the audience. However, perhaps I am going about it wrong, and I should only add surprise twists, if the story is convenient for them?
Why? Plenty of people seem to be the good guy until the reveal. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Again, it's about motivation. Most characters are not purely bad, but they are often motivated by self-interests. If something doesn't cross their path or will bolster their self-interest, often they can seem quite accommodating. Cross them or attack their identity and you feel their wrath. Most narcissists and individuals with borderline personality disorder tend to walk that fine line and have explosive black-and-white thinking. Most criminals have antisocial personality disorder characteristics. They can be quite charming, seem very intelligent and yet have no feeling or remorse for their actions.

Psychopaths truly are 'evil to the core'. Look at many serial killers. I know that's not what you have in mind, but they embody that idea. They can be so bland in social appearance that you'd never know they have girls chained up in their basement. Then one day, the SWAT team is surrounding the house perhaps exchanging gunfire. They're good at reading their victims and presenting whatever facade is needed. Everything they do is planned out, logical in its execution, for the most part. 'Adding only surprise twists' is thinking that puts you back in the box. I guess, like your consultant, I'm suggesting you go back to the drawing board. Don't abandon everything but you need to re-approach how it works from the start.

1. Develop your characters.
2. Identify your true story.
3. Select just a couple key elements.
4. Develop your story using reasonable responses based on the level of stress/motivation in the scene.
5. After you finish the draft, go back and think about red herrings and twists.

It's easier to complicate a functional, straightforward story than it is to write a complicated tale off the top of your head. Most writers will have notecards that they lay out to help plan and visualize all the twists and turns.

The advantage to creating the clean draft is that you can add complications based on your budget. It's good to have shootable story that you can improve. Right now it sounds too complicated to shoot. Use surprise twists judiciously. It's like a slap in the audience's face to have too many like "Ha! I bet you didn't see that coming! Stupid viewer!". A good surprise twist is when you've left breadcrumbs along the way that when the reveal comes, the breadcrumbs all make sense. Use them like very spicy peppers, with care.

Every time someone mentions twist endings, I always think of Robochicken's take of M. Night Shyamalan where he jumps out saying "What a twist!". While I enjoy his works, the idea that everything has to have a twist to hold the audience's attention is overused. A good story with great characters works just as well.
 
Okay thanks. The story is about the cop's fall from grace, not the lawyer's

I did come up with the story first originally, then tried to pile on the twists and red herrings after, but this is where the problem lied. I wanted to keep the main villain a secret, and you think he is good, until the main character proves to the police that he is bad.

However, I need to write it so that the protagonist finds out he is bad, without the audience finding out and that is really tricky. I mean if he finds out, the audience will find out. I want to write it so that he finds out before the audience does, and the audience does not find out, till he reveals to everyone else with proof that the man was a villain.

I have tried writing it several ways to misdirect the audience so that you think he has found out something else, or make the audience read the scenario wrong, and then later, the audience will realize what he really found out.

However, I have not been able to do this in any way that makes sense. I showed it to two friends so far, and they both said that I should not have a scene that shows how he finds out he is bad. He basically just thinks there is something suspicious about him, and I do not have to explain what. Just write that he thinks that something is suspicious about him.

Would this work for other readers though? If I protagonist finds out who the villain is, and sets up a plan to find proof and bust him, wouldn't the audience want to know what got him on that trail in the first place? If he thought he was suspicious, just because, with no evidence to lead him onto him, would audiences buy that? Especially when the road to proof involves risking your career and life?

This is before the vigilante downfall of the protagonist of course.

But this is one of the main problems with the script that does not make sense they say. I am waiting on a third friend's opinion to come back.

Can I do that for story though? It's okay to have a the hero think who the villain may be, just because it's a possibility without any explanation to point in that direction? I have it written so that after he busts the villain and shows the cops his proof, one of the cops says "looks like your suspicions were right". Should I not explain how he got suspicious and just leave it at that, since you do not have to explain everything to the reader and leave some things up to mystery?

Another thing that may be a problem in the script, not sure, is some of the dialogue. Since I set it in Canada, I used terminology with Canadian courts and so far, perhaps American readers may not understand of course. But I wanted to keep it authentic to my setting. Like for example, when someone uses the term "plead the 5th", most movie goers are going to know what that means. But in Canada it's called "section 11". Or how lawyers do not use the term client as proper court terminology and use the term solicitor instead. Those are two examples so far.

Could that be a problem for readers, and I should 'American-ize', the dialogue, so it's more recognizable by most western audiences?

As for whether or not I can keep some of the same elements like suggested, I think I can.
 
Last edited:
However, I need to write it so that the protagonist finds out he is bad, without the audience finding out and that is really tricky.

Some people will pick it, some people won't. You need to play a balancing act. If you fail to drop enough bread crumbs through the film/script, it'll seem like it comes from no where and it'll come across poorly. If you lay your breadcrumbs well, it can still be a twist for the majority of the viewers. It's all about your execution. Execute it well and it'll be a great story, execute it poorly, you might as well shoot yourself.

There are plenty of tools available to you. Pick the right tools for your story and your situation.

Another thing that may be a problem in the script
Could that be a problem for readers, and I should 'American-ize', the dialogue, so it's digestable by most western audiences?

It may or may not be a problem. If your target market won't understand, then, as a writer, you've failed and need to work it another way... If your target market will understand, all is hunky-dory. All common sense, right? It all comes down to the basic premise: Who's your target audience.

As people have said, time and time again, without your script, no one has any clue whether you've written your usual steaming pile of disjointed, illogical crap, or a masterpiece. No one here knows what you're doing, probably not even you.

Why don't you ask those who have read your script these questions? Or is this another case of your merry band being as useless as the one asking the questions?
 
Okay thanks. The story is about the cop's fall from grace, not the lawyer's

I did come up with the story first originally, then tried to pile on the twists and red herrings after, but this is where the problem lied. I wanted to keep the main villain a secret, and you think he is good, until the main character proves to the police that he is bad.

However, I need to write it so that the protagonist finds out he is bad, without the audience finding out and that is really tricky. I mean if he finds out, the audience will find out. I want to write it so that he finds out before the audience does, and the audience does not find out, till he reveals to everyone else with proof that the man was a villain.

I have tried writing it several ways to misdirect the audience so that you think he has found out something else, or make the audience read the scenario wrong, and then later, the audience will realize what he really found out.

However, I have not been able to do this in any way that makes sense. I showed it to two friends so far, and they both said that I should not have a scene that shows how he finds out he is bad. He basically just thinks there is something suspicious about him, and I do not have to explain what. Just write that he thinks that something is suspicious about him.

Would this work for other readers though? If I protagonist finds out who the villain is, and sets up a plan to find proof and bust him, wouldn't the audience want to know what got him on that trail in the first place? If he thought he was suspicious, just because, with no evidence to lead him onto him, would audiences buy that? Especially when the road to proof involves risking your career and life?

This is before the vigilante downfall of the protagonist of course.

But this is one of the main problems with the script that does not make sense they say. I am waiting on a third friend's opinion to come back.

Can I do that for story though? It's okay to have a the hero think who the villain may be, just because it's a possibility without any explanation to point in that direction? I have it written so that after he busts the villain and shows the cops his proof, one of the cops says "looks like your suspicions were right". Should I not explain how he got suspicious and just leave it at that, since you do not have to explain everything to the reader and leave some things up to mystery?

Another thing that may be a problem in the script, not sure, is some of the dialogue. Since I set it in Canada, I used terminology with Canadian courts and so far, perhaps American readers may not understand of course. But I wanted to keep it authentic to my setting. Like for example, when someone uses the term "plead the 5th", most movie goers are going to know what that means. But in Canada it's called "section 11". Or how lawyers do not use the term client as proper court terminology and use the term solicitor instead. Those are two examples so far.

Could that be a problem for readers, and I should 'American-ize', the dialogue, so it's more recognizable by most western audiences?

As for whether or not I can keep some of the same elements like suggested, I think I can.
I can think of a couple ways this could be done. But I think key to your efforts is that you make the lawyer approach the cop and you develop a 'friendship' between them. Each uses the friendship to get information about the other and a possible leak in the department. Different people become red herrings. An occasional person will implicate the cop and lawyer as well, though they also have their defenders. The final, critical trap is set when a McGuffin is said to be stored away. It looks like a complete fail, until the critical element is revealed that unravels and reveals the culprit.

If you can make the friendship seem real and meaningful, it will hide the suspicions. If the initial evidence presented to the lawyer was stolen, it can serve as your McGuffin. It's also a clue that makes sense to the lawyer later. Keep your enemies closer. The cop will want to keep a watchful eye on the lawyer who at first avoids it. When the clues start arising (Sweetie's breadcrumbs), it seems the lawyer is befriending the cop to help gather evidence on others. In fact, the lawyer may even defend the cop when potential evidence arises. It's only in the end, that the cop begins to realize he was being played. That could lead into your chase sequence around the McGuffin. Then the lawyer is caught then the big reveal.

I don't think the idea is bad but you need to keep it clean and simple. You need to be strategic with your clues (breadcrumbs). Keep your list of possible suspects small and manageable (no more than 8, 5 or 6 is better). The real trick to making this work is the character development.

As far as the jargon, use what is most convenient for you. British films don't bother to 'translate' for those of us 'across the pond'. If needed, just add a brief explanation in the dialogue--The solictor turns to his client "Under Section 11, you don't need to say anything that would incriminate you." Most Americans would pick up on that. Since many movies are marketed internationally, it's hard to imagine other countries would know what "taking the 5th" means. A fifth of what? The dialogue needs to be true to the location. If set in Canada, use that jargon.

Good luck.
 
Okay thanks. I already asked the people I showed it to before help, and they told me things like take out the bread crumbs, they give away too much and just have be suspicious without any real specific explanation. The lawyer is only in three scenes though, and I do not want to write more since the script would be too long. I am trying to make it around 90 minutes.

However, the lawyer is not a very main character anyway, but is more of a stepping stone, for getting the protagonist on the trail of the main villains. I wanted to ask on here cause my friends, although were good at critiquing if it works or not, do not know screenplay structure or study scripts like the people who want to make movies do. So I thought I would ask on here.

But now that I have been told that I have to leave a trail of breadcrumbs, that helps. I will come up with some bread crumbs for the lawyers two scenes, before the protagonist unveils him as a villain in his third. I may have more room to fit the lawyer in more before, but he does have a small role to play, and don't have much of a reason for him to keep showing up, other than his one section of the plot.

I will think of some breadcrumbs, if that's what I need. As far as the twists, go, I will concentrate on writing them as best I can to be hidden, but put story first, and not go out of my way so much, if that's the way to go.

Thanks.
 
Okay thanks. I haven't payed anyone yet. Mainly I want to know who would be a really good screenwriting consultant before I hire them. But since most want to be payed before they even read the treatment of the script, how can you tell who is good and not?

I sincerely would like to find a good one that can help, but it's been hard to find, and all the ones who did read sections or the treatment, gave me extremely different opinions from all ends. How many people have to like your script before you know it is good? If every 2 out 5 like it on average, is that good enough? It seems about average. I mean if you go to a movie with five people, odds mostly are that two of them would like it right? So is 2 out of 5 on average enough for the movie to have enough well liked viewers or do you need more?
 
Track record. That tells you where you can expect a guarantee to get the help you need.
Because the helper needs to have the same taste or alternatively be so progressed that he
throws away all your opinions, turns everything you had upside down and simply makes it
work for a paying audience.

There is good and there is good. Sometimes good isn't good enough. I amused myself the
other day by checking out the superb movie THE CONJURING on the Rotten Tomatoes. I was
curious to see what on earth someone can come up with to complain about that movie
enough to say it is rotten? And what did I find first in line? Some jerk says the movie is rotten
because in his opinion it isn't scary enough. Right. Okay. So in his opinion the intensity of
scare is THE thing that matters and he calls himself an expert. Trust me, he still thinks it's a
good movie, but because he's a jerk he says it sucks. Because his review isn't about the
movie, but about him. In that way good has turned out not good, even if it is good.
 
Some people will pick it, some people won't. You need to play a balancing act. If you fail to drop enough bread crumbs through the film/script, it'll seem like it comes from no where and it'll come across poorly. If you lay your breadcrumbs well, it can still be a twist for the majority of the viewers. It's all about your execution. Execute it well and it'll be a great story, execute it poorly, you might as well shoot yourself.

That's good advice - another way to handle this kind of scenario is to diminish the protagonist's credibility with both the audience and the protagonist's peers - maybe he/she has a personal axe to grind so they're seeing patterns that possibly aren't there. Maybe they're so disillusioned with the justice system that they've planted evidence before. Perhaps they've got a drug or alcohol addiction or unresolved grief or guilt.

Slowly eroding (or re/building) the character of a protagonist is a great way to make the true nature of the antagonist unclear whilst continually keeping the audience guessing.
 
Okay thanks. Well I have taken advice that was given before and decided not to concentrate so much on whether the twists are predictable or not, just so long as I tell a good story. The twists are just window dressing, and some writers seem to think, and maybe that's true.

I don't think I was able to drop the right amount of bread crumbs, without it being predictable, but maybe I was and the audience is not as predicting as I may think. I would like to hire a screenwriting consultant but I would like to speak to more. Are they any good websites to find them? The two I found before were on other movie making websites, but perhaps I should be looking elsewhere? I should probably hire one because I have a good feeling about him/her, as oppose to just hiring him/her because they were the one I could find who offered.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top