This month's script: "Medieval."
Here is The ScriptShadow's analysis:
So I'm going to let you guys in on a secret but you can't tell anyone. I.....I might've lied a little. Well, not "lied" lied. But a tiny minuscule white lie. I actually tried to read Medieval when it was sold. Yes. Yes. If you've been following the blog, you may have picked up that I do this a lot. I start reading a script and if it's just dreadful, I can't continue. I hurl it to the floor, scream obscenities at it, curse it for disrespecting my time, pray that the next script will be better, and move on. Which is why I am writing this review at 4:30 IN THE MORNING! Because I couldn't bring myself to read it again. It was like that paper in that obscure history course you took in college that you just couldn't bring yourself to write. That's how I felt about going back to Medieval times and reading Medieval. But here I am. The city's asleep and I have a deadline. Damn you Scott Myers. Damn you for forcing a deadline on me!And here's my analysis / commentary / B.S.
Sigh...
Okay, let's try this again. The *idea* for Medieval is actually pretty cool. A monk, a knight, a samurai, a zulu, an Arab, a gypsy and a viking are all in a jail cell a la The Usual Suspects. But, like, you know, 500 years earlier. They're bitching and moaning about how they got here and how they're all going to be hanged tomorrow and whatever can they do to save themselves?
As if on cue they are visited by the "lawyer" (the writers aren't keen on names if you haven't noticed). Although this lawyer is sleazy, it turns out he's even sleazier than your average sleazy lawyer. If the 7 of them can infiltrate the King's castle and steal the crown, he says, he will let them all go free. Unbeknownest to the group, the food he's given them is poisoned and the only one who has the antidote is him. If they don't get the crown within 24 hours, they're all dead. Did I say he was sleazy or did I say he was sleazy?
So they go on this Medieval Mission Impossible to steal the King's crown, performing numerous badass slow-motion ass-kickings while evading Indiana Jones-like traps. But when they get to the throne room, there is a man in the process of assassinating the King. No! They've been set up! This man is supposed to kill the king while all of them take the rap!
This forces our group of seven to go on the run and escape the wrath of whoever's plan this is - which looks to be the King's extremely jealous twin brother (who missed out on Kingage by 40 seconds), Richard.
And there's your movie.
Now here's the thing with Medieval. The script is not all that bad but it's not all that good either. It never takes itself seriously, proudly offering visual cues like "Imagine the Cantina in Star Wars" to set the tone for a location. Kinda shameless but it works in it own way. Really the whole thing is an excuse for as many sweet fight scenes as possible.
And that's why it sold. Really cool f*cking fight scenes. And I'm not going to take that away from Medieval. It's a director's wet dream. I don't know if anyone's seen the very stylized Christopher Gans film "Brotherhood Of The Wolf", but I imagine Medieval being directed identically to that film. And if it is, it'll be one hell of a fun ride.
When I plowed through "Medieval" -- written by Mike Finch & Alex Litvak -- last night, I had a strange sense of déjà vu. Because it felt like I had read this script before. Way back in 1990, I remember reading another spec script "The Last Boyscout" written by screenwriter Shane Black. And although the two stories have nothing much in common re their plots, they have just about everything in common re their narrative voice, tone, and style. Right there on P.2 with this example of scene description in "Medieval" -- "Yep, he's that good" -- flashed me back to Black's opus and some of his scene description from right up front -- "Yes, honey, that's your butt". And immediately, my stomach twisted into a little knot. Not the whole breaking the 4th wall thing again! Thanks to Shane Black and "The Last Boyscout," a spec script that sold for a then record $1.75M dollars, Hwood was flooded with Shane Black wannabes. That went on for way too long. But evidently with "Medieval," the ghost of Shane Black wannabes is back.And now it's your turn. Post your commentary / analysis here. Or go to ScriptShadow to post / re-post what you have to say. Based on the number of people who have requested the script to "Medieval," this should turn out to be quite an interesting discussion.
Now there's no real inherent problem with commenting on the action with SD like, "It's not the years, it's the mileage" or even breaking the 4th wall and addressing the reader like, "well, how would you feel if you were about to go on a suicide mission? Yeah. Kinda like that." Indeed, writing like that can make a script a more entertaining read. And when Hwood's threshhold guardians -- script readers -- their eyes bloodshot and souls savaged by reading one bad script after another, light upon something like "Medieval," which actually provides them with some laughs in SD, you can understand why they might be more inclined to say "Recommend" or at least "Consider" when they turn in their coverage.
However, here is the problem: I've started off my analysis of the script by spending the first two paragraphs talking about the script's narrative voice -- not the plot, characters, theme, dialogue or anything else which is more important to the success of the story. But then, Messrs. Finch & Litvak are doubtless laughing all the way to the bank to the tune of $800K / $1.6M on the sale of "Medieval." And Mr. Finch is writing this project for Bryan Singer, so I doubt very seriously they care what anybody thinks about their impersonation of Shane Black. For that matter, Shane Black probably doesn't care either.
So let me sum up my thoughts on the writing style in "Medieval" thusly: It fits with Finch & Litvak's iteration of this genre piece, and that's finally all that matters. Their concept is an outrageous story in that everything about it is comic book big. Or more precise, videogame big. And make no mistake: "Medieval" reads like a great videogame. The plot, the characters, the dialogue, the stakes, twists, turns, and yes, even the narrative voice are over-the-top big, that kind of hyper-reality you find in a videogame. So bottom line, the writers' choice of narrative voice fits in with their vision of the story. You may not like it, but it is an extension of what the overall mood, tone, and style they were going for -- and in that they succeeded.
The Plot
On the whole, it tracks a pretty traditional three-act route with a couple of nifty variations. There are also a series of plot twists, some of which I anticipated and a few I did not.
Act One
P. 1-16: The introduction of the seven Co-Protagonists: Gypsy, Zulu, Monk, Viking, Samurai, Arab, Knight. The fact that the story takes this long to go through each characters set-up and backstory is noteworthy because it is unusual. Even the choice of using flashbacks -- typically frowned upon by Hwood readers -- adds to the psychological impact I got when reading the first several pages: "These writers are going to go balls-out in this story." Of course, most of the backstory incidents do that right there in the action, but their choice as writers to take 16 pages and use flashbacks to intro their core characters underscores the writers' 'outrageous' slant on the material.
P. 17-29: When the herald character (Lawyer) arrives, that marks the beginning of what I call The Hook, a plot point that spins the story in a direction that gives us a sense of where the plot is going. In this case, Lawyer makes the 7 an offer they -- literally -- can not refuse. Then comes the first sustained action sequence, which the writers note with "Chapter II: The Heist" (following Chapter I: The Gathering). In general, I found the action writing to be quite good. The writers make a conscious choice not to use SHOTS / SECONDARY SLUGS which would have made the action more readable, but I suspect they didn't do that in order to keep the page count down (that might also explain why most of their parentheticals were placed within sides of dialogue, not on their own separate line).
P. 29 - 36: Realizing they have been set up and stuck with the Pageboy character, the 7 determine that "together we might have a chance," seven against an army. And at that point, we have the end of the first act, what I call The Lock - because now the plot is locked down: It's the 7 plus Pageboy against the Nemesis (Edward) and his enormous mix of bad guys in his armed forces.
Act Two
P. 36 - 47: This is the first of five extended sequences which comprise the second act. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Finch & Litvak used the sequence methodology in cracking the story's plot. Here the 7 and Pageboy visit the Gypsy's nephew (Frederick) in a local tavern. This is essentially 'down' time, a change of pace from all the preceding action, and an opportunity to lay out some exposition and provide some additional beats in subplots, such as Arab and Knight. I should point out that the writers make good use of callbacks throughout the script including one between Gypsy and Frederick, as when Gypsy forces his uncle to drink poison, killing him: "You'd think you were the one who fucked my mother."
P. 47 - 59: A big action sequence tagged by the writers as "Chapter IV: The Getaway." Again quite good SD in general and a nice plot twist (which I guessed): That Pageboy is actually a female, the Queen-in-waiting Amelia. But I must say where the Shane Black approach in the first act didn't bother me that much, there were several times in this sequence where the specific modern cultural references -- "Bruce Lee vs. Odd Job" / "'Black Hawk Down' time" -- and directing lingo -- "CAMERA slingshots" / "We CRANE UP" -- really lurched me out of the story. As compared to the very first pages where the writers used 'modern' lingo in dialogue -- "Hey! I'm innocent! Hey! Hey! I was judge-fucked!" / Are you going to whine all night?! / Any time, gyppo" -- to tell the reader, "Hey, this isn't going to be one of those frumpy medieval language jobs, we're taking poetic license and having some fun here," I began to grow weary of the contemporary references in action description.
Now let me point out that it's the midway point in the script, and I don't care about any of these characters all that much. Oh, I get what's going on, what the stakes are, and I'm mildly amused by Gypsy, generally sympathetic to Viking, and somewhat curious about Monk, but none of these characters has approached anywhere remotely near three-dimensionality. But again, I think this is a conscious choice on the part of the writers because their inspiration for the story is the world of videogames. And per the type of videogame, the writer is responsible to give characters just enough to generate empathy and understanding toward them, as well as distinguish between them.
P. 59-67: The first scene in this sequence is actually my favorite in the script. There's some good dialogue between Gypsy and Amelia that actually opens up these two characters, allowing a bit of their humanity to show through. Plus, befitting a scene in the middle of the script, what I call a Transition, we see a transition with Amelia: Where Knight begins to instruct her in the way of using a sword. This scene is followed by others to take advantage of another 'down' time: Viking and Samurai swap talk and ideas, as do Monk and Arab. These are all beats in subplots that we can expect to play out in the script ahead.
P. 67 - 81: Apart from the introductory pages, this is the longest sequence in the script, and it's virtually all action. It also includes the worst (best?) Shane Black-ism in the script with this SD: "Remember the place we first met Zulu back on pg. 6? Deja vu." If I'm not mistaken, Black did the exact same thing in "The Last Boyscout." Amidst all the action -- again well-written and visual -- the writers drop in a critical bit of exposition: Monk's confession of the truth about his background (P. 78: "I am a monster. I am a plague. I am the Devil").
P. 81 - 90: The final sequence of the second act. It begins with Edward all pissed off. I should note the cuts back to Edward are a traditional device to (a) check in with the Nemesis to remind the reader they're still around and (b) to provide a break by cutting away from the Protagonist 'team.' Two interesting things in this sequence. First, how Monk gives himself up to save the others. I wasn't so much surprised by him doing that -- his character's arc would be to do something self-sacrificial -- but I was by the specific circumstances involved: Poor people who only want one of the seven so they can get a reward in order to have food to eat. I thought that was a rather novel idea. The other thing is the suddenly budding romance between Gypsy and Amelia. Yes, they had their rather philosophical discussion back around P. 60 and a few other bits of business, but apart from them being forced to have their bodies clamped together in this action sequence, I didn't really buy the chemistry.
Act Three
P. 90 - 98: What I call On the Defensive. And true to form, the group loses Knight. Beyond that, Edward confronts his would-be challengers and uses a bit of Gordon Gecko 'greed' logic to spin their initial estimation of what to do, eventually (and quickly) choosing to support him as King. But what really distinguishes this sequence is after what's left of the 7 reaches safety, Amelia demands to go back -- a nice twist. There's her appeal to the remaining Co-Protagonists on P. 97, which you either buy or don't. These type of speeches are tough to handle and after Blutarski's broadside in Animal House ("Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor"), really what can you have a character say that can convince a cynical jaded script reader that those words would energize the other characters. But at least they had Gypsy hold out at the end: That was a measure of respect for the character's inner conniving self and at least the writers let one soul not be immediately swayed by Amelia's call to arms.
P. 98 - 109: On the Offensive. Once we realize that the group's entire goal throughout Act II -- getting to the boat to escape -- was a Maguffin of sorts, we are in new territory as they head back into the jaws of danger. The requisite ticking clock -- Edward's ordination -- then Amelia's entrance and, what I thought, was some very smart dialogue, ticking off one piece of logic after another. All ending with Amelia assuming her rightful place on the throne. Or so we think.
P. 109 - 116: This may have been the niftiest bit in the script. Where we would typically be seeing The Final Struggle taking place, followed by the Denouement, what we get instead is an elongated variation of M. Night Shyamalan did at the end of The Sixth Sense: A series of flashbacks to show how Amelia set up the good guys. Topped off with an even niftier twist: The revelation of the Lawyer being "Niccolo Machiavelli."
All in all, I thought it was an entertaining read. Moreover, I can see why the script sold:
* It's a videogame wrapped in a screenplay. That means it can be turned into a videogame. And it will appeal (in theory) to all those godzillion of young male videogamers. Assuming that they cast Amelia with a hot voluptuous actress, they even got some eye-candy who kicks ass for the gaming fans.
* It's an entertaining read. Perhaps too much of the Shane Black thing, but I suspect the writers in going balls-out decided that the script would not not sell because there was too much of that. They erred in the direction of having fun and being entertaining.
* It's definitely big enough to be a movie. Potentially a really big movie.
* Since the plot and plot twists are big enough, the studio doesn't have to hire A-talent (with gross profit participation deals), but a bevy of B-talent to fill the roles of the 7. As much bang for less bucks.
* It will make for a kick-ass trailer. Easy marketing campaign.
* Spin-off possibilities: Comic books, sequels, prequels. Clean it up substantially, you could at the end of its movie life turn it into a kid's animation series.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but I'll leave those to you.
Now let me go out on a limb here and make a prediction: This movie won't get made. Why? First off, the studio has to make a critical decision: Shoot the film like it's written, which is a definite R-rating (this would be going after hardcore teenage and up gamers, but would cut out a huge target demo of younger males), or pull out all the F-bombs and do mostly simulated violence, not the gore-fest as described in the script. If the studio goes that route, then they run the risk not only of losing the older gamer types, but also gutting the script of its edgy sensibilities.
That is the kind of fundamental choice that can drive studio execs crazy. They may hire one set of writers to de-fang it. Not like that result. Hire another set of writers to bring it back to a soft R. That may satisfy nobody. And going down this route can be the fast-track to Development Hell.
Another reason the movie may never get produced: As noted, the characters basically work for "Medieval," the videogame. But as yet, a videogame is still not a movie. Even an over-the-top action flick like this needs characters with more depth than is currently written. Now I'm not even sure I believe that. But knowing development execs, I can virtually assure you that Finch & Litvak got notes on providing depth and texture to most if not all the seven lead characters. And again, that can be a slippery slope to Development Hell, too.
But chances are I'll be proven wrong and the movie will get produced if only because New Regency is on the hook for $800K right off the bat (the purchase price). They hire one, two, or three more writers to rework the script, you're looking at $2M in development costs. At some point, a director will get involved. And they'll want their own writer on the project. Throw in a pay-or-play deal for the director and pretty soon, the studio starts getting real 'pregnant.' Plus, at any given point, their execs just need to step back for a few seconds and look at the project from the Big Picture standpoint and realize, they could probably shoot the thing as is and make back their money on B.O. and primary ancillary revenues alone.
UPDATE: PJ has provided this link where you can download the script "Medieval." And while you're at it, visit PJ's screenwriting blog here.

19 comments:
Medieval
The script's story line plays like "The Dirty Dozen" in the age of castles, plagues and serfs, which the studio hopes to spin as a hyper-realistic action movie in the vein of "300."
Actually, Medieval is more like the Magnificent Seven, not the Dirty Dozen. Regardless— Let’s break it down:
Per the press release quoted above the studio hopes for a ‘…hyper-realistic action move…’. They have a long way to go. For example on page 56 the soldiers attack our heroes with a trebuchet from a bridge. Don’t think so. The Medieval trebuchet was a massive war engine and its size required that the machine be built at the site of the siege.
And the ‘twist’ ending where The Lawyer is revealed to be none other than Nicollo Machiavelli? We’re told the story takes place in the 14th century -- Machiavelli was born in the 15th century and died in the 16th. ‘Nuff said.
Setting: Where the hell are we? If we rely on speech patterns and character names -- Edward + Amelia + Gregory == England. If we use the twist ending as a guidepost -- Machiavelli + Renaissance == Italy (Florence). Big difference. Medieval English cities are different than Italian cities of the same period and it affects the action of the story, eg. Running across roof tops – England, thatched roofs – Italy tiled roofs.
Characters: here is were Finch and Litvak missed the boat. Seven unique individuals from seven distinct backgrounds and seven different cultures and what do we get? Shallow, same-sounding characters who all speak perfect English. This diversity of characters could have been a great opportunity to create a huge amount of tension and conflict between the ‘heroes’ as a series of subplots set against the main story conflict.
Dialogue: the aforementioned same-sounding characters. Again, all that diversity, but no distinct voice. Also, some of the dialogue took me right out of the story world. Two examples: when Samurai calls Gypsy, ‘gyppo’ and Frederick tells Gypsy, ‘You really screwed the pooch this time, didn’t you, nephew?’
Screwed the pooch?
Action/description: found the whole thing way too confusing. During the fight scenes – and there were plenty -- it was difficult to track exactly where each character was in relation to the others. Besides that the scenes were way over done – action directed on the page.
Plot: The story is a McGuffin -- a vehicle for the twist ending. This script felt as if it were written as a contemporary piece and then someone had a brain-fart: damn, wouldn’t it be cool to play this out in the Middle Ages? And, they did. They changed the locales and the weapons and the character’s occupations, but little else.
Finally, one of the questions asked: why do you believe the script sold? My answer: lots of action == lots of set pieces. Also, because the characters are so anonymous and shallow the movie can be cast with ‘cheap/unknown’ actors.
For me the writing was too cute by half and would make Shane Black himself blush a deep crimson. Bottom line – although I did not like the script I sure do wish it was mine! I could use the money.
Defy Gravity -- Keep Writing!
Extensive review and an excellent read. I wanted to offer an additional perspective as a producer for a video game development company. You are absolutely right about this being a videogame movie. There were so many tonal resonances as I was reading it to player characters in games. And not just in the games that this generation plays, but in the movies that influence the development of those same games.
However, this movie would not easily adapt to a videogame. If this idea were proposed to a development studio, the first negative would be the number of characters the player must control. That puts it in the realm of other role playing games where you will be competing against the biggest and the best in the business. The medieval city environment is too small and too cliched, and it offers little above what other games have already mined. The goal, to get away, a la The Warriors, has been tried, and it has failed in a videogame setting (as did The Warriors game).
It would require significant modifications in order to become a videogame concept which may be another negative mark in the "Not Getting Made" column.
Thanks, Jeff. Clearly you know more than me about videogames. And I suppose there are studio execs who do understand something of that part of the entertainment industry. But then I also suspect that many do not, so the theoretical idea, at least, that "Medieval" could translate into a videogame was probably one of the bullet positive points that went in with the coverage of the script. That's just my guess.
I couldn't get beyond the first 20 or so pages because the writing style was so jarring for my delicate sensibilities, and ever since being tricked into eating sweetbread as a teenager I've had an aversion to cajones so prominently on display.
But in terms of why this script sold, I'd guess that's partly the reason. The execution was supremely confident -and if you can pull it off, which they evidently did - that confidence can be contagious.
The screenplay is very derivative, which is not meant as a criticism. Given the confidence of the execution, I'd say that in these times when Hollywood is so predisposed towards remakes, that sense of familiarity while reading the script was doubtless very comforting, reassuring. In a nutshell that's my guess as to why I it sold.
I couldn't plow through it, sorry, lol. But I'm still laughing about "screwed the pooch."
Why it sold, my guess: it reads like a video game, and Gypsy kind of reminds me of Jack Sparrow.
I read the whole thing and truly resented every page - to say I was not on board with the writers is a gross understatement. I do see why it sold, though: plenty of action set pieces, cheap casting, targets the key demographic (every time I complained to my husband about something I thought was beyond ridiculous, his response was "that sounds kinda awesome"), and potential for franchising. I was surprised by the twist at the end - that was the one thing I appreciated about the script.
Your point about the MPAA rating is an interesting one - I hadn't thought about that.
For me, the character work was so weak that the story was going to be a total fail no matter what else they did; however, it was the writing that really bothered me. It was really the opposite of what people talk about as your goal - instead of not being able to put the script down, I had the hardest time making myself pick it back up.
HOWEVER - Scott, this is a great idea, and I look forward to reading the next script. Thanks for hosting!
So, it really rolled as a big action/adventure/first-person-shooter pc-game level.
I learn through Jeff's post it's actually also a pc game.
It looked much like some levels in Prince of Persia 2, and Assassin's Creed [though I didn't play it]
And I believe this script comes on the wave of "Prince of Persia" [IMDB link] , still under development now, starring Jake Gyllenhaal, due in 2010.
The plot is nothing more but a series big and bigger brushes with various enemies and level "Bosses", spaced with "breathers" where bits of the story are told.
There are too many characters to develop them [many are just "borrowed" archetypes i.e.: Zulu reminds me very much of Juba in Gladiator ... ], but what the script aims at is to reproduce the dynamics of a game IMHO.
As were the Tomb Raider installments, Wing Commander, and many other.
M.
Over at ScriptShadow, reader Jim had what I thought was a good point:
"The thing I took from this script is to have fun with your writing and let yourself go. They had fun and I had fun."
Something we probably overlook too often, but from P. 1 to P. 116, the writers of "Medieval" had a consistently 'fun' tone throughout -- in SD, dialogue, plot twists, even some of the transitions were just plain fun. For this type of genre-piece, it was a smart decision at least insofar as looking at the script as a 'script read.'
I only got halfway through. I was a little scared the both of you were going to say it was the best thing ever. I'm glad the reviews are mixed.
I'm not too keen in general on the Shane Black 'dude, this is awesome, dude' tone in description blocks, but I can tolerate it. The John Woo and "Black Hawk Down" references took it too far, though.
I did think the concept was cool. A little simplistic, but I think that was an intentional choice. It is just supposed to be a bunch of cool stuff blowing up and bad asses. I would have appreciated a little more foreshadowing/setup on stuff like the barrel of rum.
But it was some of the anachronisms that I really rubbed me the wrong way and turned me off. I wish the lawyer would have been called something like VICEROY or GRAND VIZIER. He still could have talked like a sleazy lawyer, but I just immediately visualized the evil corporate lawyer from the Simpsons.
And dropping terms like "skull-fuck" and "pussy" bothered me for the same reason. I thought it would have been cooler to use "Conan the Barbarian" dialog. Instead of "I’m not in the habit of
risking my neck for anything other
than a purse or a pussy." how about "...than a purse or the affections of woman of loose virtue." Instead of skull-fuck, how about the standard raping and pillaging?
I love action movies so Medieval was always going to be right up my street.
And in the action stakes, it didn’t disappoint -- the action sequences are very well written. Okay, so it did borrow/steal heavily from other movies (The Last Boy Scout, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Warriors, The Usual Suspects, Ocean’s Eleven, The Magnificent Seven to name but a hundred) but, like Teralling said, that’s why I think it sold.
The story is a mash-up of so many great movies (and impressively manages to weave them all into some thing resembling a plot) -- it does feel safely familiar.
Yet despite being an action junkie, Medieval still managed to be a frustrating read. Only Shane Black can get away with writing like Shane Black. The characters didn’t make sense at times -- the Samurai, who when we first meet him tells us that death in battle is the most honourable way to die, allows himself to be arrested? Likewise The Monk who finally unleashes his evil side in one scene but then sacrifices himself in the next. The final twist was very, very unnecessary. However my real problem was the dialogue, it was just too modern -- It made Pirates of The Caribbean seem like The Canterbury Tales.
But “screw the pooch” I’d still happily hand over my money to see Medieval.
I really hated the script and couldn't get through it -- I think both of your reviews were terrific. I dont care whether the movie gets made or not, cause I'm pretty sure I wouldnt go.
I can certainly see why the film sold. The script moves at a brisk pace and does carry the air of confidence. It was probably sold more for the rough concept than the style of writing.
That said, I agree with other posts where the dialogue was questioned. I also felt it was too modern and too rough. I didn't fit. It also felt like each character's dialogue was interchangeable.
As for the Shane Blackness of the script, that was jarring. That may be a personal problem, though, as I am always pulled out of a story when the writer suddenly addresses the audience.
I know Scott felt that the referencing other movies settings helped with establishing an atmosphere, but I felt it was distracting. It also felt a tad lazy on the writers part. Why not just cut and paste scenes from all your favorite action films? I think doing so once would have been okay, but doing it repeatedly was another distraction.
At one point when they use the line from Raiders-It's not the age it's the mileage-it seems to come close to plagering the line. I know it is said with a wink to the reader, but it still seemed a tad off.
All my moanings aside, would I see the film? Probably. Since I have read the script, I would be curious to see what was kept and what was tossed. Plus, I am a sucker for adventure films and have sat through drek before so once more won't hurt.
A lot of good points have already been made - I'll try not to repeat them.
I was particularly interested by all the pop culture mentions in the script (star wars, terminator, etc.). I wonder if it perhaps was also used for a couple of other reasons besides just setting the scene:
1. To strongly reinforce that even though this is set in the past, it's going to look/feel modern and blockbuster. 2. Is it perhaps attempting a bit of success by association - comparing itself to big, successful films.
I also found the decision to use generic labels like Zulu interesting. Perhaps a benefit of that in a script like this (where character development isn't high on the agenda) is that it makes it easier to keep track of who's who when the action gets going. Also it possibly helps a couple of the twist reveals seeing as they're based on secret identities.
From the title, I expected an attempt to make knights cool again, similar to how POTC made pirates cool. However, having read it, it seems more a 300 attempt. I can see why it could appeal to studios – the action never seemed to stop. In that way, it reminded me of a Matthew Reilly book.
Anyway, I really enjoyed reading everybody's feedback – thanks Scott and Script Shadow for making this happen.
I give this script a thumbs down. It wasn't terrible but it wasn't great either. The over the top writing style was tolerable but it made too many references to other movies. That showed a near total lack of subtext.
While a lot of space was used to introduce each character there just wasn't that much depth to any of them.
The amount of gore seemed wrong too. Here's a story world that is as much a fantasy world as Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, but the extreme blood and fairy tale world just don't go well together. Nobody ever gets decapitated in a fairy tale.
I thought this was written exactly in the style that would appeal to the audience that would want to see the movie. The first few pages did give me a sense of "this is going to be fun". yeap. Mindless action. One set piece after another. Sometimes you just want to be numbed by what's on the screen and you don't care about "character development". I can see this dropping to PG13. And the 12 and 13 yo kids I know wouldn't care about character development--they would go to this because "it would be so cool".
Gotta tell you plenty of kids and adults would go to this and not know England from Italy in the Middle Ages nor would they care as long as the movie created a believable looking world. That said the Machiavelli comment at the end might be lost on some since they wouldn't know who that is.
I think the large sum on this is a signal that the TPTB want this known as a big picture--rather than this is the best writing to ever cross a computer screen.
If I were to write this story I would have gone about it differently. But reading this shows me that there is no "one secret way" to create a selling script. I have to find my voice for my stories and hopefully some day my voice will fit with how someone else sees movies too.
I must say, I really am enjoying this script, more than I thought I would, quite frankly. And I'm not surprised that it sold, not at all. It's a fun ride, emphasis on the fun. The writers have taken a familiar genre but spun it in fresh way that feels new. I can see the characters and I can envision actors playing them. The set pieces are clever, and it certainly held my interest. It's not Shakespeare, but I give the writers props. For what this is, it's very good.
I’m a little late to the party but I’d like to put in my two cents.
I enjoyed the MEDIEVAL script and I can see why it sold for oodles of money. Sure it has its problems but this script falls into the category of a “popcorn” movie that Scott blogged on recently. It’s entertaining. People would pay to see it. Why?
1. Action and lots of it.
2. The characters, diverse and legendary. Each already has a built in brand recognition and loyalty. Notice in the script that there was little or no description of the Viking, Samurai, et al. We already know that stuff. Or at least we think we do. Historical accuracy isn’t one of the script’s strong suits but who cares? The target audience for this movie are folks that figure the word “medieval” falls somewhere between high-evil and low-evil.
There’s been some discussion on the style of the writing and the Shane Black effect. Personally I don’t care. I’m concerned about what would show up on the silver screen. Is it a good story? Interesting characters? Entertaining? Other than the dialog, an audience doesn’t see or hear any of the pretty words and phrases of a script. More importantly, the people that are paying big bucks for scripts are looking for stuff that they can film, not style.
IMHO this script is only one good rewrite away from being ready to go. (And as a personal note to the people that threw all that money at this script - PICK ME, PICK ME!) Here’s some of the changes I’d make.
Intro - I’m OK with the early flash back deal to get us some back story on the characters but we also need a little back story on our environs. Not just time and place but how real is this reality? Are we in Londonstantinople as Xander mentioned? Will dragons and hobbits show up in scene 27? Since we know going in that the outcome of our protagonist’s quest is vital to the politics of the time (it’s a historical movie, the heros ALWAYS play a pivotal part in history) we need to know what else is at stake. Easily accomplished with a quick cut to the impoverished peasants grumbling about the government while they build the gallows or something. Pretty standard stuff.
And while we’re cutting away from the characters, how about something to push the story along? I’m all for character development but after about 3 flashbacks, if I’m watching the movie, I’m counting the number of guys in the cell and figure that I’ve got time to go out, get rid of half a mega sized Diet Coke and still make it back before anything happens.
Cartoon Violence - Sure this is supposed to be an over the top action and violence movie but I think if you dial it back just a bit it would have more impact. When characters have almost superhuman powers you lose the grit. John McClane walks across the broken glass and the audience cringes. But Zulu gets hit by 3 arrows on page 105 and keeps on running. So when he gets hit by the 4th (and eventually fatal) arrow we just figure he’ll rub some dirt on it and keep going. Where’s the pathos? Make your characters mortal and you get more bang for your buck. The movie “300" should be the template here. It was certainly over the top with violence but the Spartans were still just men who could be knocked off at any moment just like you and me. Cool (I’m trying to get into that whole Shane Black type of writing thing. Not easy.)
Physics - Several writers have mentioned the historical inaccuracies. I can put on my “suspension of disbelief” goggles for that but even in a fantasy world the laws of physics and chemistry still apply. Magnets don’t attract gold or other non-ferrous materials. Steel boomerangs don’t cut anyone in half unless the boomerangs weigh 75pounds or more. Steam would parboil our heros long before it would cause the ground to heave. And I can tell you from personal experience that rum is not explosive, at least until the next morning. There’s plenty of other examples but Finch and Litvak should remove that “In case of nuclear attack, climb into the nearest lead lined refrigerator” sign in their office. It won’t really work and we can only “disbelieve” so much.
Dialog - Much of it is very good. Then there’s the other part. It’s a Jekyll and Hyde of dialog. “Don’t forget our agreement.” who talks like that? A lot of “On The Nose” stuff. But since this post is already ridiculously long, lets take a moment to carp about the dialog on page 3 which is actually the first page of the script. Gypsy does a voice over. Then in dialog, he complains about his innocence. Samurai responds “Any time gyppo.” Gyppo? Is that supposed some kind of ethnic slur? Wasn’t that the sixth Marx Brother? What kind of insult is that? The good people watching this movie don’t have our advantage of a script with big bold courier letters saying “Gypsy (V.O.) explaining to them that the guy doing the talking is a gypsy. Sure, wardrobe will give him a big gold earring and a head scarf but he could be a pirate or part of the E-street band. Maybe we could have Cher in the background singing about how “all the men would gather round and lay their money down.” Sheesh.
I’ve got more but let’s move on. The rum’s talking, last line, page 3. Gypsy then sez “ When you call me that... smile.” That was funny when Bob Hope said it but I’ve moved on since then. Like I said, sometimes the dialog’s good...
Characters - Yeah, the characters are a little flat. But that always happens when you have an ensemble cast. There’s just not time enough in one movie to flesh everyone out. But they could have been better. Here’s an idea. Since our heros aren’t supposed to like each other very much (At least that’s what I gathered, it wasn’t explored very well.) how about combining some of their initial flashbacks? For example, the Knight and the Arab, they’re supposed to hate each other. Put them in the same flashback where the Knight is supposed to be guarding the “someone of importance” that the Arab assassinates (the gal is a concubine or something). Unhappiness ensues. It wouldn’t be all that hard to set up and saves time, money and space.
The characters also weren’t very consistent. That’s a problem. We’ve GOT to believe in the motivations. Let’s just take one example. Edward’s just fine with murder, rape, pillage and starvation of the masses but the only reason he’s busted during the confrontation with Amelia is that he’s too polite to interrupt her little speech. Take out your sword Edward and lop her head off. You’re the King. This is like that bit in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil’s son wants to just shoot Austin and be done with it but Dr. Evil insists on an elaborate, but escapable plan with mutated sea bass.
OK, I lied, here’s another example with an even worse inconsistency and the twist is based entirely upon it.
The Twist - It sucked. There was no reason for it. The story’s over, the monster’s dead but let’s tack on a big old twist. Just because we can. Now I love a good twist, nothing better, but this was pointless and not believable. If Amelia is all that conniving and evil she’s not about to put herself in harms way. Now if you go back into the script and have her cowering around the fight scenes and hiding behind various good guys when things get rough it might work. But the way it reads now, it just doesn’t fly. And even if you fixed all of that, the only reason to put it in would be to justify the original V.O. that claimed that this was “the truth.” And after all of the other inaccuracies, what’s the point? Lose the twist. They tried to do a clever ending on the Sopranos too, same net effect.
So, all in all I liked MEDIEVAL. It wasn’t perfect but it certainly gives me insights into what’s important and what’s not when you’re trying to sell a script. And I, like the rest of you, am trying to sell one.
Formerly Michael or Mike but since we have a pluthera of them, now known as the Übrpossum
Nice work, Uberpossum! All good points.
Well, Scott,
It took me perhaps 5 pages to realize why you said you'd be interested in my opinion on "Medieval." It certainly answered my style questions! Anything can go, as long as you've got the moxie to put it in and leave it in. And in certain situations, people with power to make decisions will accept it.
But YIKES.
It took me three or four restarts and furrowed-brow determination to wade through the overblown and extra cutesy SD. Shane Black with a vengeance. So, ah, derivative. Yet fun, as long as you weren't looking for a fast read or clarity or anything like that. Suffice it to say I learned a lesson in screenwriting by experiencing "Medieval" as a reader. When I envision hundreds of scripts hitting transoms with this kind of SD, I think I'll have an edge if I'm careful to use only the level of voice that benefits my story.
Anyway, I agree with you -- gaming it was. And, apparently, Yoda I am.
I kept telling myself, "they'll cut the profanity, CGI it and let it rip." But the gaming analysis better addresses the lack of character development throughout and the extended action sequences, many of which were great fun. Then there's the centuries crunch to get -- say -- zulus in on the 14th C., not to mention that astute observer of the Florentine court, Machiavelli. And the genre squish to cram in the fantasy creatures. Well, I guess that was all in the name of good clean fun -- and a hefty purse or pussy.
Then we come to the twist. Honestly, after reading the script, all I could think of was Knight's twice-repeated aphorism, "The trouble with the end justifying the means is that sometimes you get to the end and wonder if it was worth it."
Then again, sometimes you know.
P.S. -- Sorry to be so late in commenting. I will grab the scripts when they become available from here on out. Thanks to both of you for this super opportunity to check out sold specs in real time!
Post a Comment