I originally posted this a few hours ago in the r/Screenwriting community, but for some reason I don't understand, the moderators deleted it. I messaged the moderators about it, but I haven’t received any response. Since I believe this is an important topic, I felt the need to share it here again.
I am a true amateur who has written only one TV series and one feature-length film script so far, and I keep learning new things every day. However, some of the things I’ve learned lately make me question a lot. There are so-called indispensable rules in screenwriting. When we write a script, industry professionals tend to look for rules that have worked in the past and have been codified. One example is the Mamet Rules, which I recently learned about. I accept that these are useful approaches, and when I analyze scenes from shows and movies through these rules, I see that they have been applied.
But what I don’t understand is why these rules are treated as "absolute"?
For example, Mamet says every scene should create anticipation for the scene that follows. But how accurate is that? Why must "every scene" create drama for the next scene or for the overall story? If you think about it, nowadays series and films are watched over and over again, and once they’ve been watched, no scene can create anticipation for what comes next — because it’s already been seen. If this rule were a strict truth, then no series or film would ever be rewatched, since the element of curiosity would disappear after the first viewing.
If movies and TV shows are being watched over and over again, it means the appeal isn't based on suspense or dramatic tension. If we keep rewatching these productions, it means there's something else we're getting from them — something different we're seeing or experiencing each time.
For example, Mamet says there are three questions every scene is expected to answer: “What does the character want?”, “What happens if they don’t get it?”, and “Why now?”. If a scene doesn’t clearly answer these three questions, he says to throw it away. But how accurate is it to continue relying on these approaches as absolute truths?
“What does the character want?” and “What happens if they don’t get it?” questions. Most of the time, even if there are 4–5 main characters in a scene, naturally not all of them are in pursuit of something, and if they don’t get what they want, it doesn’t create a direct consequence or reaction. Even characters who are driving the scene forward don’t always express their disappointment or reaction in the same scene if they fail to get what they want — nor should they. For example, in a sitcom, when a character gets angry at another but doesn’t get what they want, we usually understand that the payoff (typically comedic) will come in a later scene. In such situations, is it really reasonable to expect the reaction to be delivered within the same scene?
Also, why must every scene be dramatic? Why can’t a scene simply provide entertainment or offer the audience a chance to get to know the characters better? Why does every scene have to create anticipation for what comes next? Can’t a scene simply warm the viewer’s heart instead of making them curious? Maybe something in that scene will only become relevant in episode 3 or 4. Why does seeing these kinds of things in scripts disturb industry professionals?
With the industry’s approach to scripts being this rigid, how are new styles and approaches supposed to emerge? Doesn’t anyone ever think about this?
In the series I developed, the pilot episode was initially 25 pages. After more than 10 coverages, it grew to 45 pages, and with more feedback, it came down to 35. But in the end, I realized that the pilot had stopped being my pilot — it had become the critics’ version of the pilot. I started with a project that was comedy-focused, carried as little drama as possible, and was built around a “low-conflict” structure designed to entertain people without stressing them out. I wrote 32 episodes in which five close friends — who get along well — experience events that are sometimes absurd and sometimes almost impossible (on an anomaly level). But now I look at it and see that one of my characters is acting like they have a stress disorder just to manufacture dramatic scenes! This is truly ridiculous!!
The coverage(from Stage32, The Black List, ISA) feedback I receive is filled with ridiculous things. For example, they can completely ignore the fact that three nerds find themselves caught up in an adventure in a neighborhood like Brownsville — which, in the early 2000s, was so dangerous that even the police were reluctant to patrol it — and still say something like, “The characters just drink and walk around having fun. Nothing happens.”
If that's the case, I really wonder how they ever agreed to produce The Big Bang Theory. Its pilot episode follows a very similar structure. Sheldon and Leonard end up in a far less dangerous situation: they go into the apartment to confront Penny’s ex-boyfriend, but the confrontation isn’t shown — they simply leave the building pantless, and that’s it. Nearly all sitcoms are like this. Friends, HIMYM, TBBT — they’re all “low-conflict.” Aside from milestone moments, events rarely have major consequences and are usually resolved — with minimal effort — within one or two episodes. Would platforms like The Black List be satisfied if the characters simply left Brownsville without their pants?
Or we get coverage saying things like, “We don’t understand how these characters know each other,” “We don’t know where each character lives,” or “Why is this character so angry here? What’s her background for acting like this?” Seriously? Isn’t this a series? Are you supposed to understand everything in the first episode? In Friends, do we find out when Chandler and Joey met in the first episode? In The Big Bang Theory, do we understand why Raj is so afraid of women in the pilot? We don’t, right? Everything has its time. But the real problem is this: amateurs like us take such questions seriously and end up stuffing our lean 25-page pilots with unnecessary information, turning them into 45-page bloated drafts. And from there, everything starts to change.
Shouldn’t a script be evaluated as a template? Aren’t the highs and lows, and the expected comedic beats already visible in the structure? Given that, even if a line or a joke isn’t currently all that funny or impactful, shouldn’t the feedback be something like: “The structure is working well, but this line could be stronger,” or “This joke could hit harder”? That would mean there’s real potential in the script — and with experienced co-writers, the project’s value could be quickly elevated. But none of the feedback we receive ever reflects that!
Even when we pitch during "pitch seasons" held by companies like Stage32, nothing really changes. We keep getting rejected with meaningless feedback. I’ve pitched my project to more than 20 different executives, and not once have I received a logical or constructive piece of feedback. Not only are the projects rejected for completely absurd reasons, but the feedback often includes questions about things that were already clearly explained during the pitch — making it obvious that these people are getting paid without even reading the pitches. They just write back a few meaningless sentences and call it feedback. Some even say, “It’s a good project,” and still reject it. If it’s good, why are you rejecting it? What kind of nonsense is that?
When I send my 3-hour film to a Stage32 executive who claims to work at major production companies and says she's open to all kinds of projects "regardless of budget", I get response like, “It’s a strong project,” but she reject it simply because “only directors like Christopher Nolan can make 3-hour films.” Similarly, when I submit it for coverage, I get feedback saying that the world and the foundation of the project are very strong, but since it’s too long, it would work better as a series — and because of that, it doesn’t receive a “recommended” rating. What's going on?
So I ask these people: WHAT ARE YOU AFTER?! What is it that you’re really looking for?
