Really good/lean/efficient screenplays

[Twit 2]

Was watching Back to the Future yesterday for the first time in absolutely ages and apart from thinking (unsurprisingly) it holds up well and getting far more of the little gags (all the Reagan stuff, the Bluebird billboard etc) I really agree with the consensus of just how efficient the script is, in that everything that is said or happens does so for a reason and links up with everything else. Reading the trivia about the production, it's intersting that Zemeckis felt the Johnny B Goode section wasn't necessary and was going to cut it but for the fact that test audiences really liked it, but even that bit is a resolution/call back to the battle of the bands audition/wanting to play loud and live in front of an audience.

Anyway, I guess it's a good script because it's only got two writers (most Hollywood blockbusters have umpteen credited writers and god knows how many polishes/script doctors) and they worked for years on it during the pre-production delays. Anyway, this doesn't need to be a BTTF thread - what screenplays are great and why?

[Shit Good Nose]

Jaws.  There is absolutely zero chaff in that script, whilst still keeping hold of all the important stuff that is overwritten (WAY overwritten) in Benchley's book.  Even the town aldermen arguing about whether or not to close the beaches and what effect that will have on local businesses gets a look-in, but in the book Benchley takes about 100 pages, whilst the film does it nicely with one very succinct line - "Amity is summer town.  We need summer dollars."

If anyone were to ask me to name the perfect film, even though it's not my number 1 favourite, I would ALWAYS say Jaws.

[Twit 2]

And like BTTF, the script got improved during production delays.

[popcorn]

Jaws.  There is absolutely zero chaff in that script, whilst still keeping hold of all the important stuff that is overwritten (WAY overwritten) in Benchley's book.  Even the town aldermen arguing about whether or not to close the beaches and what effect that will have on local businesses gets a look-in, but in the book Benchley takes about 100 pages, whilst the film does it nicely with one very succinct line - "Amity is summer town.  We need summer dollars."

If anyone were to ask me to name the perfect film, even though it's not my number 1 favourite, I would ALWAYS say Jaws.

I agree it's a marvellous film with a marvellous script, but there is one thing I'd change about it. Instead of having the scuba tank that blows up the shark come from the boat, it should already be in its mouth. It's about to eat Brody, it opens its mouth, and Quint and his tank are already inside, and Brody shoots that.

[popcorn]

Terminator is another damn efficient script. The way it reveals information is very elegant.

Sometimes I think that's the most fun you can have in a story: learning.

[phantom_power]

Like it or not, Shaun of the Dead is a fucking tight script, as is Hot Fuzz to a lesser extent

[Mister Six]

Die Hard has the most perfect script ever to come out of Hollywood. You can remove anything without having an effect on something somewhere else in the script.

Only one scene in the whole thing isn't establishing character, or setting up/paying off something - the one in which the news team discuss how dangerous they think the terrorists are (and even then it could be a hint that everyone is way off-base about their true motives).

[SavageHedgehog]

The reporters/Paul Gleason stuff does drag a bit after the first couple of viewings though.

[Shit Good Nose]

I agree it's a marvellous film with a marvellous script, but there is one thing I'd change about it. Instead of having the scuba tank that blows up the shark come from the boat, it should already be in its mouth. It's about to eat Brody, it opens its mouth, and Quint and his tank are already inside, and Brody shoots that.

Confused - the tank IS already in its mouth (from when Brody slams it in), and Quint didn't have a tank...

?

[popcorn]

Confused - the tank IS already in its mouth (from when Brody slams it in), and Quint didn't have a tank...

?

Confession: this was a thought that occurred to me last time I watched the film, which was 10 years ago, so I could deffo be talking mega-bollocks.

But my suggestion is about how the tank gets into the shark's mouth in the first place. I reckon it's neater if it's already there because the shark ate Quint (including his tank) - not because Brody grabs it from the boat and shoves it in there. If Quint doesn't go down with a tank then, well, couldn't he have gone down with a tank?

I need to rewatch the film though.

[Shit Good Nose]

Confession: this was a thought that occurred to me last time I watched the film, which was 10 years ago, so I could deffo be talking mega-bollocks.

But my suggestion is about how the tank gets into the shark's mouth in the first place. I reckon it's neater if it's already there because the shark ate Quint (including his tank) - not because Brody grabs it from the boat and shoves it in there. If Quint doesn't go down with a tank then, well, couldn't he have gone down with a tank?

I need to rewatch the film though.

It gets in the shark's mouth as Brody uses it as a defensive weapon when the shark smashes into the inside of the boat as it's sinking - the tank hits its teeth and then brody gets it all the way into the mouth as the shark disappears back into the water.

Quint doesn't dive in the film and ergo doesn't have a tank - he gets eaten when the shark jumps out of the water onto the back of the boat and Quint slides down into its mouth.  The only one that dives and has a tank is Hooper, who escapes from the attack in the cage and swims down to the ocean floor, only resurfacing after the explosion.

Happy to say, from the film's perspective, that your criticism is moot and invalid.

Yep - rewatch it.  I can't believe that anyone other than a small child can go 10 years without seeing Jaws........

[popcorn]

It gets in the shark's mouth as Brody uses it as a defensive weapon when the shark smashes into the inside of the boat as it's sinking - the tank hits its teeth and then brody gets it all the way into the mouth as the shark disappears back into the water.

Yep, I know.

Quint doesn't dive in the film and ergo doesn't have a tank - he gets eaten when the shark jumps out of the water onto the back of the boat and Quint slides down into its mouth.  The only one that dives and has a tank is Hooper, who escapes from the attack in the cage and swims down to the ocean floor, only resurfacing after the explosion.

Here's the problem. I was mixing up Hooper and Quint.

Have the shark eat Hooper, including the tank. Script efficiency. Job's a goodun.

[Shit Good Nose]

Have the shark eat Hooper, including the tank. Script efficiency. Job's a goodun.

Ahh, right.  Well that's what happens in the book, of course, except instead of Brody shooting the tank and it blowing up, the shark lamely dies of its wounds from when Quint was stabbing it.

The original intention was to kill off Hooper in the film as well, but was changed during filming when they got the film of a great white caught up in the wires holding the cage, which was empty.  So it was re-written with Hooper (knowing exactly what to do, cos he's an expert an' all) swimming down to the bottom to evade the shark.  Which makes sense. 

I actually think the film ending works better because it leaves Brody and Hooper with a happy buddy-buddy ending (and removes that relationship even further from the awful love triangle sub-plot in the book), and, being the only one of the three that doesn't survive, mythologises Quint even more.  Which is fitting given his background.  If you also kill off Hooper, OR have Quint survive, it cheapens that mythology and risks making Quint less memorable, and also slightly removes Brody from his non-hero everyman character by having him as the sole survivor.

Some of the reasons why I think the script is so good, especially when compared with the absolutely dreadful source material.

[popcorn]

I actually think the film ending works better because it leaves Brody and Hooper with a happy buddy-buddy ending (and removes that relationship even further from the awful love triangle sub-plot in the book), and, being the only one of the three that doesn't survive, mythologises Quint even more.  Which is fitting given his background.  If you also kill off Hooper, OR have Quint survive, it cheapens that mythology and risks making Quint less memorable, and also slightly removes Brody from his non-hero everyman character by having him as the sole survivor.

Some of the reasons why I think the script is so good, especially when compared with the absolutely dreadful source material.

All valid, but interestingly these are all arguments from theme, when to me an efficient screenplay prioritises moving parts - making each element do as much as it can and removing it when it's done. It's cleaner from a mechanical perspective to end the film the way I suggest, but it might damage some of the themes, as you reckon.

Definitely going to rewatch now as I am making all these arguments from very foggy memory. You're right, ten years is too long not to have seen Jaws.

[neveragain]

Like it or not, Shaun of the Dead is a fucking tight script, as is Hot Fuzz to a lesser extent

Hot Fuzz is tight, in that every plot point is brought up and resolved efficiently (and I think every scene is necessary) but it's still a bit long. I always get bored before the shoot-out. Which must be the screenplay's fault ultimately.

[Steven]

How do we exactly know the screenplay itself was tight and efficient and the movie is not a product of later editing? I think famously the Jaws script was constantly being chopped and changed each day by Gottlieb, Robert Shaw mostly re-wrote the USS Indianapolis speech himself the night before filming. Plus as has been said the whole Hooper/Brody's wife love-triangle and Mafia/Mayor keeping the beaches open stuff was dropped, but the personal interaction between Brody, Hooper and Quint was exapanded on due to 'Bruce' the mechanical shark shitting the bed.

Judicious editing seems to have just as much an effect on how tight and lean a film is, without a copy of the initial screenplay to compare it's difficult to judge. It reminds me that the initial edit of Dumb & Dumber was much longer and tested very poorly with audiences so it was went at with a hatchet. I mean take a look at the original edit for the Seabass scene, it's actually horrifying for a 'comedy'.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

The reporters/Paul Gleason stuff does drag a bit after the first couple of viewings though.

Yep. Entertaining though they are, Walter Peck and the Agents Johnson could be cut from the film quite easily. Paul Gleeson should remain to make all of the bad decisions.

[popcorn]

How do we exactly know the screenplay itself was tight and efficient and the movie is not a product of later editing?

It doesn't really make a difference. The end result - the sequencing of plot, whether on the page or in editing - is what's important really.

[greenman]

How do we exactly know the screenplay itself was tight and efficient and the movie is not a product of later editing? I think famously the Jaws script was constantly being chopped and changed each day by Gottlieb, Robert Shaw mostly re-wrote the USS Indianapolis speech himself the night before filming. Plus as has been said the whole Hooper/Brody's wife love-triangle and Mafia/Mayor keeping the beaches open stuff was dropped, but the personal interaction between Brody, Hooper and Quint was exapanded on due to 'Bruce' the mechanical shark shitting the bed.

A long time spent on the script in pre production and flexibility during shooting is pretty often the mark of good blockbuster cinema though, Lord of the Rings comes to mind, perhaps not "lean" in comparison to many of those mentioned but far leaner than it could have been.

Groundhog Day comes to mind as well with Ramis and Murray tearing strips off of each other with the script yet I think it hangs together very well indeed, a lot of characters and situations get reused and it generally has an good idea what its doing the vast majority of the time rather than just going for random comedy which must have been tempting with the premise(and indeed has been whats happened when they premise has been nicked).

[Monsieur Verdoux]

the script for the 1989 Twin Peaks pilot is tight af

[Jerzy Bondov]

I think cutting Thronburg and the agents from Die Hard would damage it more than you think. The beauty of that script is that every scene develops a complication for Die Hard, Gruber or both. Both characters always have a clear immediate goal (even if Gruber's motives aren't always clear) and everything that happens either helps them or gets in their way. Nothing happens for no reason. The Thornburg storyline clues Gruber in to Die Hard's identity, which forces the final confrontation. The FBI make it harder for Die Hard to clear the hostages from the roof before it explodes. The push and pull between Gruber and Die Hard and the way external forces complicate it is the whole film.

[mothman]

Gleason already tried his big police storming the building plan, and it blew up (along with his APC) in his face. So you need somebody else who has yet to learn - namely the Agents Johnson - to try their own assault plan, and have it go wrong (yet again) due to not knowing what they're getting in to. Of course, they could have written out the assault helicopters and just have them be the transports the terrorists asked for, but that makes it more fo a downer. The Johnsons being hoist by their own petards softensn the blow of the fact that about a dozen FBI Hostage Rescue pilots & troops got killed as well. Gleason learns from his mistakes, it wouldn't be credible for him to try the helicopter assault after what happened the first time.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

The helicopter plan is a Trojan Horse kind of thing, so you could write it that Gleason's character is changing tack and trying to be crafty. I suppose you need the FBI appearing for the time lock thing to work though and the agents don't take up that much time. The reporter little could more easily be cut - just have Hans notice some personnel record or something that gives away Holly's relationship with John.

[Nobody Soup]

in all honesty, I'm not really sure, 'cause I can't remember every scene from every movie buuuut...

if I was having a punt I'd say, Ghostbusters and Silence of the Lambs.

Silence of the Lambs just stinks of a well written screenplay, like, it's so good you actually notice it.

Ghostbusters I'm less sure about because it's a comedy and comedies do have scenes just chucked in because they're funny, but ghostbusters, from memory, just feels like a movie which is able to get an outlandish concept off the ground well enough so you can invest in it and everything gets tied together into a really satisfying end.

[greenman]

Ghostbusters I'm less sure about because it's a comedy and comedies do have scenes just chucked in because they're funny, but ghostbusters, from memory, just feels like a movie which is able to get an outlandish concept off the ground well enough so you can invest in it and everything gets tied together into a really satisfying end.

I think it benefits a lot from a lot of the humour being down to wit(especially Murrays) rather than having to divert the script much, this scene for example is probably one of the most entertaining bits of exposition ever filmed...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gxCT-U7A_A

[Lemming]

Every time I watch After Hours it strikes me how well paced the movie is. When the main chain of disasters starts it's just nonstop moving from fuck-up to fuck-up, no time wasted.

On Die Hard, I agree with the idea that you could easily cut out the FBI agents and reporters. The movie could be about half an hour shorter but much more concise and tight, with every scene focused only on either Mr. Die Hard or Team Gruber. But Die Hard 2 is my favourite Die Hard so I'm objectively wrong about anything related to the series.

[Shaky]

Ghostbusters was the first one that came to mind for me. I think it's a very sharp script, with character arcs in the right places, all scenes proving crucial and basically no flabbiness in it's 90-odd minutes. The way it builds from the very first, office-bound scene to the apocalyptic skyscraper-based stuff in the final act is pretty masterly though obviously the direction, editing, subtle changes in tone (bit screwball here,  Lovecraftian madness there) play big roles as well.  Something that the remake got wrong (in particular) was the fact it pitched absolutely everything at the same level throughout.

Greenman's example is a good one - you barely even notice that the jail scene is essentially just an info-dump because it's exactly the sort of thing Ray & Egon would do at that point of the film. Throw in the reactions of the more skeptical Winston & Venkman and it just works really well.

[popcorn]

Ghostbusters is indeed tight, but I have a few tiny niggles with that one too. Reposting from an old thread:

As a kid I assumed the Stay Puft Man was some American character I wasn't familiar with, but no, he's totally fictional, so when he first shows up, he doesn't have the thrill of recognition he really needs. (Imagine if a giant Sugar Puff Monster or something had showed up.) The frustrating thing about this is that they could have compensated for this by setting him up earlier. You see a bag of Stay Puft marshmallows in Dana's apartment, which is nice, but it's an easter egg at best and easily missed.

There really should have been a TV commercial with the Stay Puft Man before the Ghostbusters ad, and in fact, researching the character, I discovered exactly this was the plan, once: "At one point, we considered either ending or beginning the Ghostbusters commercial with a Stay-Puft spot -- complete with a little stop-motion countertop like the Pillsbury doughboy. We discarded that idea, though, as being a bit of overkill." I don't think it would have been overkill at all, and it's a shame they didn't do it.

And you know the Twinkie Egon uses in his analogy? The one that would be "thirty-five feet long and weighing approximately six hundred pounds"? That should have been a marshmallow.

[Thomas]

Like it or not, Shaun of the Dead is a fucking tight script, as is Hot Fuzz to a lesser extent

I wandered into this thread to mention Shaun of the Dead. Not a line of it is baggy, full of detail and subtle callbacks. Very tight, as you say.

[biggytitbo]

Raiders is the one for me, the perfect script backed with perfect direction. Not a moment or line wasted, everything is there to propel the story forward.