“Thanks for letting us see your script. While it was well-written, it’s not something we’re interested in developing. I found the dialogue well executed, especially in the early going, but I think it needs additional character development. (_____?_____) Thanks, again, and good luck with your writing.”
Many of us have received letters or emails like that, haven’t we?
That kind of response is, of course, disappointing. But it is also chock full of clues about the sender’s experience with the material.
I’m going out on a limb, here, but, after many years, I’ve come to believe several sad realities about writers’ efforts at getting their material seriously considered. And I should point out that this has not been my experience with submissions and pitches at Stage 32.
So, let’s analyze the quote above.
First, while thanking the writer, they use the word, “see,” rather than “read”. Why? Could it be they actually haven’t read it? Or much of it? I’ve come to believe that in some cases, perhaps many, that’s so.
Then, they use the word, “was,” rather than, “is”. I can only assume that it, and, by extension, the writer, is effectively dead to them.
But, then, they offer a clue that gets to the heart of the matter. It’s not something they want. That is probably a clue to the entire response. It’s quite possible that even had they requested the script based on a pitch, they knew early on, possibly even at the pitch, that they would never make an offer. And, at best, they wanted to see it to eliminate the possibility that it was too close to something they had in development. Or that the idea was too good to not at least take a look at.
Then they refer to the dialogue as “well executed,” rather than “well written” or “clever,” or “insert some other positive here”. That’s probably because they sifted through sufficiently to see that it was competent. But, since they actually probably never read far (“in the early going”), they couldn’t be more precise.
And then we come to the single most common comment rejected scripts receive from professionals: “it needs more character development”. Haven’t we all gotten that one? It’s a catch-all. What do you say to it? How much more character development does it need? 11%? 23%? 61%? Where in the script doesn’t it have character development? Hint: the sluglines, maybe? The reality is that the professional resorting to this criticism has often done so because he doesn’t know what to say. Or he doesn’t know why he didn’t like it. The truth is this is a criticism ALL SCRIPTS, PRODUCED OR NOT, ARE, AT TIMES, GUILTY OF. As writers, we have 90 – 120 pages to tell them our movie. It’s not a 300+ page novel, where characters have room to breathe and tell us everything. The reality is that character development in movies doesn’t come from back stories where the guy was bad because his mom took away his rubber ducky in the bath when he was 6. Character development in movies emerges out of behavior, specific behavior unique to that character. While the criticism can, in some cases, certainly, be true, of new writers’ scripts, it is certainly not true in many others. Watch successful Hollywood films. You’ll find some character development. But is there enough? :) Gotcha!
Finally, we come to the blank section with the “( ? )”. That signifies what was not said. While respect was given indicating some judgment of minimal competence, there was no invitation to try again with other work. So, all that was left to say was the standard, “Thanks” and “good luck” kiss-off. Rejection letter boiler plate. Translation: “Hope we don’t see ya later!”
So, yeah: a bunch of sad realities. But take heart, every writer gets ‘em. I can’t count the number of hugely successful, ultimately produced, films whose scripts were first rejected by “everybody”. It’s our Cross to bear. And only we who “hang in there,” who “don’t give up,” and who get “rejected by everybody,” may ultimately succeed.