Question: What about submitting a 187-page script?

Open Forum question from stefano altieri:

Getting Into The Story - A question of length…

THEY say that a script’s length in pages is an approximation of its film’s length in minutes. So a 187 page script ‘would’ be a three hour film. THEY don’t make many of those anymore for many commonly understood reasons. Granted…

BUT

What is your (2nd person plural) take on presenting a 187-page-strong script - knowing that rewrites happen regardless of length?

Is it better to introduce a weaker script and risk it being rejected - at an acceptable 130 pages?

Script Readers - Do you frown upon a thick script from the get go? Do you find it harder to bring yourself to read one because of the extra 6o pages or more? Do longer scripts suffer the agony of a waiting list, or are they rejected almost by default, unless they are ‘recommended’?

Scriptwriters – You obviously wrote every scene, and each one ‘must’ be left intact. So you can’t pick a couple of scenes that you could do away with, but you gotta make some cutbacks (and I’m not talking about no formatting tricks either). Do you cut away from the first, second, or third act? Which, and why?

Producers – Does script length matter that much at introduction?

Agents – Does it?

Scott – You offer any thoughts and this would turn into a MasterCard ad.

A great response in comments from The Bitter Script Reader:

@Stefano - bluntly, submitting a 187 page script would be telling the person reading it that you have no understanding at all of industry standards, and while some poor sap (usually me) would still be tasked with reading it and writing it up, the read would probably begin with the assumption that the writer hasn't done their homework in the medium. Thus, every tiny mistake in your writing would be amplified and seen as further justification not to give your submission a chance.

This is an industry where a 95 page script is seen as an acceptable length for some genres. Submitting something twice that length as a representation for your writing is a bit like wearing a T-shirt and jeans to a job interview at a law firm - it suggests you don't have a handle on what you're doing.

And then stefano replied:

@ The Bitter Script Reader – Thank you. I get the whole thing, I understand you, and I like the way you come across – ‘bluntly’. I just may wreck my script to an acceptable industry standard because I also understand industry standards, but let’s be radical and think outside the box for a minute. Get the aspirin bottle, forgive my ironically lengthy comment, and let me try to explain…

Here’s the thing

Parallel to Stone’s 205 min. ‘JFK’, and Coppola’s 202 min. ‘Apocalypse Now’, there is a story - let’s call it ‘X’. X is the BIG story and X’s gotta be told, in order to storytell. BUT the even bigger story is the having kept X from being a big story in the first place AND what is interesting about X is only revealed through what is interesting about this bigger story - ‘Y’.

Now ‘Y’ is in itself a story, but what makes Y interesting is its relation to X in particular. So both X and Y must be told in order to tell the story of X in the first place. Let’s now call that story (where both X and Y are combined) XY. Both X and Y really happened and there is no better way to tell the story of X than by telling XY.

Y in itself is interesting enough to take on a life of its own as a story, but it would just be another (good) night at the movies, like De Niro’s 167 min. ‘The Good Shepherd’. X is also a good story by itself, but it would just be another good story without also telling the story of Y. Therefore the XY dilemma.

Add to that ‘Z’ - the protagonist/catalyst – without whom there would have been no X in the first place and you have one modern-day character-driven epic-story of Truth, aka XYZ, aka 187-page-script.

Imagine what Spike’s Malcolm X could have been if it was more about the whys than the whos; what Spielberg’s Schindler’s List would have been if it took place in America instead of Krakow. And do you recall American History X? Imagine that sort of character driven story with dialogue that speaks to a domestic audience spanning from “I Have a Dream-ers” to “Yes We Can-ers” and overseas generations that have questioned The American Way and The American Dream to this day.

THAT IS MY XYZ.

XYZ is NOT the standard and the standard is, usually, not extraordinary. But combine XYZ with a visionary director and you get an explosive picture of the year contender.

Your tired head is probably going ‘Well, then Stef, it’s a LONG SHOT’…

Not necessarily. Not because of a 187 page script. It’s about getting ‘into the story’. And I believe that - regardless of length - if the writer succeeds at getting the reader to get into it, then YOUR job is that much easier.

And from “Would you…” to “meataphors” I’m with you, friend. I know… And I’m NOT just trying to sell. Nor sell out. Strangely, I’ve always gotten my point across to everyone in t-shirt and jeans, but I have no problem wearing a suit.

I truly appreciate your time and blog (link).

Note: Oliver Stone’s 240 page script for Any Given Sunday turned into a 160 minute film.

Hey, the U.S. men's soccer squad defeated Spain, the #1-ranked team in the world, in the 2009 Confederation's Cup, breaking Spain's 35-game unbeaten streak, which in my little world proves it's true: anything can happen! So far be it from me to definitively say to you, stefano, that you will never sell a 187-page script.

But it would take near a miracle.

Hell, it takes near a miracle for a puny little 110-page spec script to sell. At least that script didn't have an additional 77-page humpback to throw it out of whack - at least reading-wise.

Before I get into the meat of my comments, let's dispense with this line of argumentation straight off: Citing Steven Spielberg, Spike Lee, or Oliver Stone as examples of how a 187-page script can work. The only reason that they have had super-long scripts that got greenlit is because their names are "Spielberg," "Lee," and "Stone." Unfortunately your name is not. They have a long-standing professional record they can cite to buttress their argument that the world really needs to see a 3 hour, 7 minute movie (actually with the credits it would probably clock out at 3:14). But believe me, the studios will give even them significant pushback for two big reasons: (1) A script that long adds significant dollars to the production budget. (2) A movie that long reduces the number of times the film can be run in theaters per day. For example, whereas a 100 minute movie can run 7, even 8 times a day, a 3-hour+ movie will only run 5 or even as few as 4 times per day.

Do you see the economic problem? The movie will cost more, yet generate less revenue (potentially) per day during its theatrical run.

Those realities do not make a studio executive comfortable - which is a big reason why your 187-page script will need a near miracle to sell to a major Hollywood studio.

That's an economic argument. What about aesthetics? There are plenty of great 3-hour movies: Das Boot, Lawrence of Arabia, Heat, Magnolia, Schindler's List, Patton, Ghandi, The Deer Hunter, etc. I would ask you this simple question:

Do you honestly believe that your script measures up to those movies? Because that's what you're asking an agent, manager, producer, studio exec, director, or actor to do. A 3-hour movie has major heft to it, it is a substantial story that packs a wallop. If you can honestly read your script and say that this 187-page opus does, indeed, stand among this above list of movies, then get thee to Hwood now! Believe me, if your script is that good, it will sell.

Then there's this possibility: Perhaps you've fallen in love with your story. Not the way that all writers love their stories, I'm talking head-over-heels crazy-in-love so that your eyes just can't see this weak subplot or that unnecessary sequence.

Speaking as a writer who always writes long, I can tell you this: I've never written a script that couldn't use cuts. I routinely have to trim 10-15 pages. Painful? Yes. Does that process make the script better? Absolutely.

So my bottom line to you is this: Have some people read your script. Not your friends, but actual writers. If their attention never flags, if they're with you every page from FADE IN to FADE OUT, if they finish your script, and are literally begging you not to change a word, then send it on to Hwood. But be prepared for them to suggest that it's too long. Hell, I have friends in the business who think that Lawrence of Arabia is too long.

Let me end with this, stefano: I like that you have passion for your writing. I like that you are willing to buck the system. I like that you have a vision for the stories you write. If you can bring all of that, plus a healthy dose of creativity to your screenplays, you may be able to pull of that near miracle after all.

UPDATE: Some great feedback. One simple suggestion that Josh James made -- "Why not write it as a novel?" -- is something to consider. Some stories are too complex and long to work as an original screenplay, but can work just fine as a novel. Added benefit: You write and sell the novel, then you can also sell the movie rights, so it's two bites of the apple. Moreover if the novel is successful, that makes it easier for a studio to justify producing a longer movie because they already can see that the story works. Finally if the novel does result in significant book sales, you're more likely to have a studio greenlight the movie because those sales and that buzz translates into a pre-branded commodity and a built-in audience.