Creative Screenwriting Magazine runs a range of screenwriting competitions for television pilots and feature length scripts throughout the year. Each one has a specifically-trained pool of readers to judge each category. This article breaks down the various components that are judged and some sample comments you can use to ensure your script is in its best possible shape.
Overall, we are looking for a high level of craftsmanship and professionalism on the page. There are other contests where it may be better to swing for the fences, but we are always mindful of the fact that Creative Screenwriting Magazine winners are going in front of agents, managers, and producers.
Universally, the readers are trained to focus on character above all else. That is the first thing that is scored, and several of the following scores are judged in the context of how they suit the characters.
We still want members of the reading team to bring their own insights and values into their scores so that different writers who submit to multiple competitions, have a better chance of eventually matching with a reader who fully appreciates their writing.
&nbsp;
<h3>Getting Past Round 1</h3>
&nbsp;
Here are some internal notes from readers during the first round of evaluations:
<ul>
<li>&#8220;The script was exceptionally well written with an intriguing premise, authentic dialogue, and complex characters. My initial reaction was that the characters would be unlikeable/unrelatable due to the fact that they were executioners, but I found it impressive how the writer managed to perfectly balance their flaws with redeemable qualities. With the writer excelling consistently among all categories, I feel this would make for an excellent, gripping movie that would have widespread appeal.</li>
<li>&#8220;Satirical in tone, this provides a fresh look within the horror genre while adeptly adding comedic elements to its plot.  The writer does well when incorporating comedy into the script where it never feels forced or shallow, and the structure is never sacrificed.  It would stand out in today&#8217;s market amongst others within the genre and has a clear demographic that it could be marketed towards.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
Those quotes are from top-performing scripts in the first round. Because the endorsement is so strong (and the score so high), the truth is that we don&#8217;t need much nuance in the internal note.
Conversely, here are some scripts that did not perform as well, but still advanced:
<ul>
<li>&#8220;Aside from the fact that the narrative descriptions contained a lot of prose, the script was well written and featured an action-packed storyline that felt original. This is a war story told from an unusual point of view, prompting me to recommend it. The main character made for a very strong female protagonist, and I could see her being an inspirational character. Adding to the appeal was that this was based on a real character&#8217;s true encounters and therefore would have mass appeal especially those that enjoy historical stories with complex character development.&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;The writer&#8217;s voice stands out almost immediately, and the reader is instantly put into the world of the story. The characters are distinct and feel full-bodied, and their relatability makes it easy for a potential reader to connect to the material.  This has great potential. However, the dialogue needs to have a consistent quality.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
What you&#8217;ll notice in this range is that there is usually a clear high or low element being described. There is something that is motivating the reader to push the script forward, an issue keeping it from being a front-runner, or both. This is the reality that screenwriters need to understand. At this level, you need to be very good at something, but you cannot be bad at anything.
On the other side, here are a couple of scripts that just barely missed advancing:
<ul>
<li>&#8220;There were a few issues with the narrative descriptions, for example the writer including dialogue, and overall, they were a bit overwritten. We also didn&#8217;t know a lot of personal information about the characters as the narrative focused predominantly on how they functioned at work. The draft stuck to advancing the plot instead of developing the characters. Other than that, I felt that the premise showed potential to make for a compelling story for the right audience.&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;The hook has familiar aspects while also creating intrigue with a fresh twist. There&#8217;s definite market potential for fans of the crime genre, and also for multiple potential seasons.  The writer&#8217;s voice is present, and the overall structure of the pilot is solid as well.  However, the pacing is too slow for the story being told. It ends up alienating the reader, making them lose interest.  There&#8217;s still a lot of potential for the material, but further development is needed before it can compete well.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
What you&#8217;ll notice here is that both readers mention the potential of their read. Our readers are very good at not giving up on a project. In truth, there are a lot of writers out there that get a lot of mileage on potential. Projects with bursts of great writing, strong underlying concepts, or some intangible charm can expect to regularly advance. To be told that your project has potential is also intoxicating for a developing writer. The truth is, unfortunately, that to be told that you have potential means that the current draft has limited it to unrealized potential.
&nbsp;
<h3>Getting to The Final Round</h3>
&nbsp;
Next, we have the scripts that advance to the final round.
<ul>
<li>&#8220;The suspense and unexpected, authentic outcome of the opening, followed by the excitement and camaraderie of the next scene, provided a solid hook. Some plotlines felt a bit too coincidental. However, just when it seemed the read had peaked early, the narrative was re-energized via the new training sessions. Coupled with the devastating ending, the narrative was thrilling throughout. The character relationships are very well developed and authentic, although there&#8217;s a missed opportunity to showcase key reactions to major decisions. The unfiltered and serious social issues the characters face made it more captivating. Overall, although a bit lengthy, the story is true to extraordinary life, and thoroughly engaging.&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;The writing style is incredibly visual and puts the reader into the time period and environment of the story easily. The protagonist stands out immediately, and her personality is compelling and vibrant. The written action does a great job at creating the world, and there&#8217;s a lot of potential conflict and complexity to the story. The pacing in the beginning is a bit slower, but by the second act it picks up effectively. Every supporting character has a role with purpose and stays realistic.  The introduction of a key antagonist in the third act adds a dimension to the conflict, and the pacing and structure of the pilot leaves the reader on a note that has them wanting more. This is a fresh perspective with a hook that is definitely marketable.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
Both of these projects moved to a shortlist and were reviewed by our judges. We would have been happy to have either of these projects win the entire competition. You can see that the readers are getting quite granular in their analyses. Some details have been edited out. We don&#8217;t expect a winning script to be perfect, but there is a distinction between a fixable issue with a part of the draft and a more serious flaw in the writing or the concept at hand.
&nbsp;
<h3>Making The Shortlist</h3>
&nbsp;
To provide one final wrinkle, here are scripts that were finalists but missed entry into the final shortlist:
<ul>
<li>&#8220;The writer&#8217;s voice is shown immediately through the character descriptions and the interactions between characters.  The writing is extremely visual and puts the reader into the story with ease. The draft introduces the lead instantly and makes sure to make him distinctive. The inciting incident occurs early and keeps the reader interested, and character dynamics make the reader want to know more.  There&#8217;s definitely market potential here. The tone and pacing of the narrative work well together, and the pilot sets up potential conflict with various characters realistically and with excitement. This draft has a lot of style and potential market value, but may not stand out amongst others like it that have come before enough to compete well at the current stage.&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;Generally funny, but occasionally overexplains jokes. Some of the humor is undoubtedly controversial. It is not necessarily disrespectful but will ruffle feathers. It also seems like some of the edgier takes will eventually be subverted or confronted in some way, but this does not happen in pilot. This leaves the reader to choose whether or not to give it the benefit of the doubt to these characters. Otherwise, it&#8217;s well-structured. The relationship between the two protagonists is relatable despite the unusual circumstances and has the potential to work well as the emotional core of the series. One lingering concern is the fact that this is a pilot when it would be better suited to a feature.&#8221;</li>
<li>&#8220;Fairly dialogue-heavy, but some of it is very compelling. The subject matter relating to wealth disparities is timely, and the protagonist is immediately engaging. He&#8217;s both humble and larger than life, which is exactly what&#8217;s needed to effectively depict this historical figure. If their opponent had the same level of depth and characterization, perhaps in lieu of some of the longer, headier political-philosophical discourse, this could be a very strong script. As it is, though, it feels more like an intellectually engaging summary of a historical figure&#8217;s life than a totally cogent, emotionally impactful story.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
You can see several of the factors we&#8217;ve discussed at play here, though with a higher standard of application. Potential is more of a neutral concept, as it should be realized on the page at this point. These projects can grab a reader&#8217;s attention at some point, but the writing isn&#8217;t strong enough to sustain it. Having a distinct style is nice, but a reader needs to be able to engage with a project on multiple levels. Similarly, a comedy needs to be consistently funny, and a biopic needs to impress beyond the compelling subject.
To put it simply, at this stage, we expect a script to not just be good, but be uniquely exceptional at what it is specifically attempting to do.

How We Judge Creative Screenwriting Magazine’s Competition Entries

Finally. After weeks, months, or maybe even years, your latest screenplay is complete. Keeping to a professional mindset, you commit to ordering feedback. You pay. And you wait. Soon enough, a reader presents their comments to you.
And they’re useless.
The “notes” might be a diatribe against your premise, a loose collection of ideas of how the reader would have done in your place, or nothing more than a recap of the plot. There are many ways feedback can go wrong. Even worse is when the notes do not fall into these traps but are still of little practical use. Identifying the highs and lows of a work doesn’t mean much if those points are not part of some balanced, deeper, structured critique to help you write your next draft.
In recent years, it has become increasingly easy for an aspiring writer to find “feedback” for their material. Writers are presented with an overwhelming number of services offering coverage, notes, reviews, and consultations. This flood of feedback goes beyond screenwriters and script readers. Rotten Tomatoes collects reviews from hundreds of “critics” for every movie, while YouTube hosts thousands of reactions, video essays, and acerbic takedowns. These are mainly personal opinions.
<div id="attachment_31224" style="width: 581px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-31224" class=" wp-image-31224" src="https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/andre-hunter-5otlbgWJlLs-unsplash.jpg" alt="" width="571" height="381" srcset="https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/andre-hunter-5otlbgWJlLs-unsplash.jpg 640w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/andre-hunter-5otlbgWJlLs-unsplash-150x100.jpg 150w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/andre-hunter-5otlbgWJlLs-unsplash-250x167.jpg 250w" sizes="(max-width: 571px) 100vw, 571px" />Photo by Andre Hunter</div>
A critique is an informed, professional dissection and analysis of a screenplay&#8217;s strengths and weaknesses, whereas a criticism focuses on the negative aspects of a script with a prescription to improve it. An opinion is a personal view which doesn&#8217;t necessarily address the underlying issues of a script in a substantial way.
&nbsp;
<h3>What Did You Order?</h3>
&nbsp;
While the terms are often used interchangeably, coverage and notes are not the same thing. When you are seeking out quality feedback, understanding these terms is a key first step.
Coverage is a brief analysis of a work’s development potential based on a grid scoring system. It&#8217;s an evaluation of the writer as well as their writing. This form of coverage is the most dependent on context and a studio&#8217;s needs. A studio’s budgetary limitations, its branding, the stylistic preferences of its executives, and the nature of its typical audience are all factors to be considered in coverage. As coverage is meant for industry professionals with little time, it is often kept brief and to the point.
Notes are an in-depth examination of a script. They are designed to help improve a writer’s current draft and, ideally, their overall skillset. If the value of coverage is dependent on context, then the value of notes is dependent on criticism to address the weaknesses.
Feedback can be a few words or a comprehensive script analysis. Unlike notes and coverage which have fairly well-defined formats, feedback format is largely up to the person giving it.
&nbsp;
<h3>What Isn&#8217;t Criticism?</h3>
&nbsp;
With all of these options, it is easier to start by identifying what is not criticism. Once a writer can identify false criticism, they can filter out those comments and begin a lifelong engagement with actionable comments.
&nbsp;
Criticism is not a Screenwriting 101 lesson
&nbsp;
A critic does have a responsibility to point out when a writer is doing their work a disservice by deviating from standard norms or including typos and formatting errors. There is a place for such minor issues when they disrupt a read, but they should never comprise the bulk of the notes. If a reader is providing paragraphs of commentary pointing out misspellings and improper margins, then they should consider a career in proofreading and leave the criticism to others.
This also applies to comments on structure. Yes, many industry readers choose to skim or even pass on projects by page 10. If they don’t know what’s going on by that point, they are more likely to move on. And they might not even read the project if it is over 120 pages.
But when it comes to structure, across all genres and all media, there is only one, actual truth: Every story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Arbitrarily stating page numbers and turning points can at most help a writer to understand the general shape of an act. For a writer to grow, they need to have an intuitive understanding of a beginning and a resolution. They need to find resolutions within arcs, scenes, and even individual lines as they refine their material.
Declaring, “The inciting incident needs to happen earlier,” does not develop that insight within the writer. It simply tells them to move a plot point up five pages.
&nbsp;
Criticism is not a summary
&nbsp;
This should be obvious, but it is unfortunately common for low-level readers to summarize a work within feedback. This is often due to the aforementioned mixing of coverage and notes or they may simply not have anything constructive to say. An executive might want a brief synopsis as a way to review a concept or keep track of their slate. Notes are time-intensive enough without a synopsis. Loglines are a worthy compromise if they aren&#8217;t already supplied by the writer.
This is not to say that a synopsis is not valuable. A tight, one-page summary can reveal which plot beats the reader felt defined the narrative. It defines the reader&#8217;s understanding of the story.
Scenes and characters not included in a summary may be extraneous. As such, if a synopsis is offered as a supplement to criticism, it is worth considering.
&nbsp;
Criticism is not a reaction
&nbsp;
The phrases “I liked this,” and “I liked that,” are reactions. They are expressing the positive or negative reaction of the reader, but not making an argument for why that reaction occurred. Identifying how the writer was able to generate that reaction is a form of criticism.
<div id="attachment_31225" style="width: 507px" class="wp-caption alignright"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-31225" class=" wp-image-31225" src="https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/crying-613389_1280-1024x768.jpg" alt="" width="497" height="373" srcset="https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/crying-613389_1280-1024x768.jpg 1024w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/crying-613389_1280-150x113.jpg 150w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/crying-613389_1280-250x188.jpg 250w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/crying-613389_1280-768x576.jpg 768w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/crying-613389_1280.jpg 1280w" sizes="(max-width: 497px) 100vw, 497px" />Photo by Amanda Catherine</div>
Many notes are presented as one section of positives followed by one section of negatives. Words offering encouragement and ways to improve are nice, but a writer should be looking for some form of connective tissue between those two sections. If a reader liked the characters but did not like the plot, then the actionable criticism will be identifying how the latter is not synergizing with the former.
&nbsp;
Criticism is not a literary analysis
&nbsp;
Many young industry professionals start out by giving feedback. Fresh out of college, they have had at least four years of literary analysis drilled into their minds. This is a tough mindset to break free from. Young readers want to know what your script means. And if they don’t like what they think the story means, they might hold it against the script.
There is a cruel side to criticism. Sometimes, a critic is presented with a work that is genuinely morally objectionable or outright illegal. Often thematic issues are less extreme. The work is unnecessarily bleak or cynical, for instance. A critic must accept the worldview of the material and proceed as a professional.
Any discussion of a work’s thematic implications should thus only be done when it is necessary for the actual criticism. Does this theme help the tone? Is it being expressed too heavily in the dialogue? Are the characters creating the implications of a theme or is the theme causing the characters to act in a manner contradictory to their internal desires?
&nbsp;
Criticism is not a market analysis
&nbsp;
There are certain readers out there who watch hundreds of movies within a year. Their minds are encyclopedias of film and they want writers to know it. When presented with a project, readers can offer dozens of film comparisons, along with plenty of associated demographic targets, awards, and box office data. That doesn’t make them critics. It makes them ideal candidates for film trivia contests.
Useful comparisons get to the difference between an element and a structure. It is easy to compare projects with similar elements. Sarcastic leads, twist endings, non-linear timelines, or a style of dialogue are just a few random elements a reader might grab onto before they start belting out a list of films that come to mind.
A collection of characters, a series of beats leading to an ending, and the role dialogue plays within a story are larger and more particular structures. Those are more difficult to identify between works. If a critic can identify such a structure in the examined work and an existing film, then they can provide the writer with a valuable reference moving forward in terms of how they might approach producers.
&nbsp;
Criticism is not rewriting
&nbsp;
Most readers are aspiring writers. That can be a strength if the reader uses that experience to hold the role of the writer as sacred. Notes should not be one-sided brainstorming sessions where the reader assumes the role of the writer and details what they would do if it were their project.
The first step to any critique is to determine and honor the material’s identity. What defines the project, both in terms of its concept, its uniqueness, and its fundamental strengths? Once a reader has pinpointed those elements, they can use that as a foundation to provide criticism and potential fixes such as combining a group of characters with similar dramatic functions.
&nbsp;
Criticism is not a chance to complain about the film industry
&nbsp;
Screenwriters aren&#8217;t the recipients of your frustrations. They don&#8217;t need to know how long you&#8217;ve been struggling to break into the industry. They don&#8217;t need to know you&#8217;re working as a reader to pay your bills until the industry finally realizes your talent and starts paying you for it.
Every writer is aware of the arbitrary nature of the industry and its propensity to congregate around established IP and writers. All screenwriters want to know is how they can get their scripts into a good enough shape to circulate.
And with that, we can finally discuss what actual criticism is and how a writer can use it to grow.
&nbsp;
<h3>What Is Criticism?</h3>
&nbsp;
Put simply, criticism is the process of identifying the craft within art. A critic identifies a work’s individual elements, argues how they are interrelated, and provides a subjective opinion of how well they are coordinated. Most importantly, good criticism should provide corrective strategies for the writer.
When a reader says that something does or does not work, they should make it clear as to why. This is where the short-term and long-term implications of feedback come in. If a writer is told that a weak character isn’t compelling, they might simply cut them out of the next draft. They haven’t grown as a writer. They’ve just erased a prior mistake. But if a reader explains why a character doesn’t work in the context of the narrative’s overall identity and execution, a writer can gain a better understanding of their own craft. From there, they can grow.
&nbsp;
<h3>Criticism Can Still Be Bad</h3>
&nbsp;
Sometimes, a critic just doesn’t get a project. They might misunderstand what the work’s “identity” or purpose truly was. Their own background and biases might make them incapable of fully appreciating the circumstances and intention of the narrative. Or they might simply have not had anything insightful to say.
Critics are not saints. They can have bad days. Their tone might be acerbic. A good point might be awkwardly or cryptically phrased. These are all parts of the critic’s own craft. Training and experience matter.
When a writer receives “bad” notes, they might worry their reaction is simply that of a jilted artist. But notes should be held to a high standard. The identification and celebration of <a href="https://www.networkisa.org/scriptnotes">genuine criticism</a> is something that writers and critics deserve.

How Seriously Should You Take Criticism Of Your Screenplay?

Even seasoned screenwriters can struggle when venturing into comedy for the first time. Unlike drama, comedy has additional structures and considerations that have to be understood for the work to succeed. Humor is what makes you laugh, while comedy must be linked to a situation, context or character.
Here are some common missteps writers make when dipping their toes into the genre:
&nbsp;
<h3>1) The Comedy Isn&#8217;t Connected To The Characters</h3>
&nbsp;
In standup comedy, a laugh comes from the combined impact of a punchline’s words, its delivery, and the personality of the person holding the microphone. The same joke that is hilarious when told by Sam Kinison might fall flat if it were delivered by Jerry Seinfeld. That’s not because one is better than the other, but because each comedian is able to tell different jokes based on their personality and circumstances.
In a comedy screenplay, different characters can deliver different beats of humor. Ghostbusters works in part because Peter Venkman, Ray Stantz, and Dana Barrett provide distinct approaches to both comedy and science fiction. Venkman is a deadpan charlatan, Stantz is a manic believer, and Barrett is a serious person in what is to her a serious situation.
<div id="attachment_30588" style="width: 643px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-30588" class=" wp-image-30588" src="https://creativescreenwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu.jpeg" alt="Creative Screenwriting Magazine" width="633" height="356" srcset="https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu.jpeg 608w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-150x84.jpeg 150w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-250x141.jpeg 250w" sizes="(max-width: 633px) 100vw, 633px" />Cast Of Ghostbusters (1984)</div>
If Venkman had thought of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, it would have been a random occurrence that was mildly humorous at best. It’s funny when Stantz does it because we inherently understand that this is coming from his personality.
For the same reason, we would not laugh as much at Stantz observing, “Well, she’s a dog,” because that would not be motivated by an underlying cynicism regarding the situation. In addition, if Barrett had not been portrayed in such a serious manner, then a delivery of that line from either character would be lacking because it would not be subverting an established dramatic thread.
&nbsp;
<h3>2) A Lack Of Comedic Structure</h3>
&nbsp;
A punchline is not a joke. Neither is a setup. A joke is both a setup and a payoff. The punchline completes the joke so it cannot be delivered at the start of a gag. Similarly, a list of jokes is not a standup set. A set requires that the jokes to build off, call back, and subvert one another.
A screenplay can have something outrageous be said or done four times on every page and still not be funny. This is because the various gags are disconnected.
A man standing in line to rent a car is not inherently funny. A woman behind the counter giggling on the phone is not particularly amusing either. Yet both of these images elicit laughter in Planes, Trains &amp; Automobiles because they are part of a broader comedic structure.
The image of Neal Page flailing his arms in a parking lot raises the energy of a sequence. His standing in line takes that momentum and arrests it. From there, Neal is at the mercy of the rental clerk, takes control through a litany of profanities, and then is himself usurped by her final line. Each shift in momentum or dominance brings a laugh. The biggest comes at the end, when all the energy of the scene is paid off at the same time that Neal experiences a total loss.
None of these beats are interchangeable in terms of plot or humor. They are tightly integrated, building off one another until they reach a climax.
<div id="attachment_30589" style="width: 633px" class="wp-caption alignright"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-30589" class=" wp-image-30589" src="https://creativescreenwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-2-1024x427.jpeg" alt="Creative Screenwriting Magazine" width="623" height="260" srcset="https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-2-1024x427.jpeg 1024w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-2-150x63.jpeg 150w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-2-250x104.jpeg 250w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-2-768x320.jpeg 768w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-2.jpeg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 623px) 100vw, 623px" />Sally Albright (Meg Ryan) and Harry Burns (Billy Crystal in When Harry Met Sally</div>
A beat of humor should be irreplaceable and immovable at all stages and levels of a comedy narrative. Just as Darth Vader cannot reveal his identity to Luke Skywalker ten minutes into The Empire Strikes Back, Sally cannot moan over a diner sandwich in the opening scene of When Harry Met Sally.
A comedy writer should be able to justify why a given joke must occur at a specific point.
&nbsp;
<h3>3) Missing Punchlines</h3>
&nbsp;
This may seem obvious, but a comedy screenplay needs specific beats of humor. It should not be hard to point to a spot in a page and say, “This is where they laugh.”
A manic tone is not inherently funny. Absurd circumstances are little more than noise until a character can pay off that energy. Consider any failed improv sketch. On paper, the premise might be humorous enough, but the audience is silent.
In Galaxy Quest, Jason Nesmith and Gwen DeMarco running through an increasingly nonsensical and dangerous system elevates the action, but not the humor. That latter element comes when Gwen, fed up at the sight of the next obstacle, declares, “Oh, screw that!” If one takes out that specific line and relies only on the characters becoming generally upset over the course of the scene, then the audience never has a point to laugh.
<div id="attachment_30590" style="width: 691px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-30590" class=" wp-image-30590" src="https://creativescreenwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-3.jpeg" alt="Creative Screenwriting Magazine" width="681" height="366" srcset="https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-3.jpeg 474w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-3-150x81.jpeg 150w, https://www.creativescreenwriting.com/cswcms/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/iu-3-250x134.jpeg 250w" sizes="(max-width: 681px) 100vw, 681px" />Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) in Men In Black</div>
This issue is particularly important for action comedies. When the action rises, that energy should be feeding into the comedy. That integration is what elevates Men In Black. As Agent K drives through New York City in a rocket-powered car, the scene quickly delivers one gag after the next. A weaker film would stop telling jokes and rely on the thrill of the action alone.
&nbsp;
<h3>4) No Shifting</h3>
&nbsp;
In any screenplay, a character’s internal tension should be constantly rising and falling. If the energy of a scene is increasingly manic, that should have a positive or negative impact on the characters involved.
If your characters are not naturally breaking, paying off the energy of a scene and delivering reactions like Gwen, then they may be too internally static. Similarly, if your lead is constantly gawking and falling over themselves, then they aren’t grounded enough arrest a scene and give it structure.
Imagine that two witty characters walk into a room. They deliver sarcastic quips at one another. Then the scene ends. And nobody laughs.
The issue is that the banter lacked any push or pull. The characters did not irritate the internal conflicts of one another. There was no shift in dominance. In a normal screenplay, this would be enough to result in a pass during a development read. With a comedy screenplay, this script gets a pass and the reader labels the writer as “unfunny”.
For good banter, look at Seinfeld. During the opening scene of “The Chinese Restaurant”, George kicks things off by eagerly commenting on garbage men. Jerry takes setup, seizes dominance in the scene, and launches into a piece about cops and garbage men. Then, Elaine, immune to Jerry’s wit, serves as a way to wrap up his ramblings. The joke works because the characters pass the comedic baton to each other.
On the surface, it seems like aimless banter from sarcastic figures. In actuality, these three characters are constantly trading dominance as a way to give structure to the humor.

How We Judge Creative Screenwriting Magazine’s Competition E...

How Seriously Should You Take Criticism Of Your Screenplay?

4 Common Comedy Missteps

Subscribe for Updates