Screenwriting : Second Chance to Revise – What Do You Think? by Aleksandr Rozhnov

Aleksandr Rozhnov Well, I received feedback where they explained in great detail what I should improve. Content-wise there wasn’t really a problem — it was more about what to emphasize and what to tone down.

I sent the revised pitch back to the same lady, and I received a really beautiful response — she gave me 4s and 5s, and didn’t mention a single mistake.

However, she noted that my project’s budget was too high, and she’s currently only working with low-budget projects. I have to admit, that really made me sad.

I think this kind of information should be mentioned upfront — I understand it’s part of their business, but for me it ended up being an unnecessary expense.

Still, I’m very grateful, because I learned a lot from the experience — even if the outcome was a little disappointing.

When you first submitted your pitch synopsis, were you immediately told that you could revise it and resubmit, or did you decide on your own to send it again and then received a response?

Aleksandr Rozhnov They didn’t tell me to resubmit, but the first feedback was so positive that I thought if I made the suggested changes, I might have a real chance. I was wrong.

Still, I really think it would be helpful if they provided a bit more information upfront — for example, whether they’re currently working with low-budget or high-budget projects.

Hi, Aleksandr Rozhnov. I think just like with any genre, the main character and other characters can have psychological depth, doubts, and transformations.

I also think pitch participants deserve a second chance. I've heard of members submitting to the same executives on Stage 32 after working on their pitches. And I heard of writers getting script requests and meeting requests after submitting pitches to the same executives.

"What happens if you fix the issues and then show it to another producer who says, “No, I don’t want a dramedy. I want a pure comedy with gags and funny situations that just makes the audience laugh”? Do you then have to rewrite the whole synopsis back to its original form?" What I've done after getting notes on pitches, loglines, synopses, and scripts is make copies of my work, then apply the notes to the copies. That way, if an executive, producer, director, etc. wants me to change something back to the way it was -- and I agree with the person and I want to change it back -- it'll be an easy change.

I agree that even a comedy can have a character with depth, but my project is the kind of comedy that’s entirely built on humor and gags. Once again, my reference is Bruce Almighty. And tell me — where’s the depth in Bruce? He’s just a guy who suddenly gets power and starts joking around and doing all sorts of crazy stuff because he can. He doesn’t have any trauma or inner struggles. He’s simply a fun, cheerful guy.

And another thing — even if you participate in a pitch again, you have to pay again. You can keep paying and pitching endlessly. But let’s be honest, that’s not really the goal of a screenwriter.

It's been a long time since I've seen Bruce Almighty, Aleksandr Rozhnov. I'd need to watch it again to see if he has any trauma or inner struggles.

The main purpose of the Pitch Sessions is to get feedback to improve your pitch (written or live), but sometimes the executives, managers, etc. will request scripts, sign writers, etc. (www.stage32.com/scriptservices/success-stories). And it doesn’t always mean pitching again, again, and again. It might only take 1 or 2 Pitch Sessions to get a request/etc.

here are no inner struggles at all. It’s Jim Carrey — his face alone is funny.

Comedy characters can have as much depth as drama characters. You just need to make it funny and/or endearing. And of course writers deserve as many chances as it takes to make a script producible. There's no such thing as a perfect script. Even Townes' script for Chinatown, considered by many to best the best screenplay ever written, went through changes.

I wonder if what the executive is meaning relates to growth Aleksandr Rozhnov. I don't remember "Bruce Almighty" but I do remember "Evan Almighty". That character was shallow, preoccupied and obsessed with work. It may not have been trauma-related or that deep, but the character layers were there.

As the story went on, he began to see the value in family and by the end, he experienced a change of heart that brought him back to focusing on family. He learned to dance again.

In BRUCE ALMIGHTY, Carrey's character is battling his own sense of ego/entitlement. He's definitely transformed into a more humble, kinder character by the film's end--accepting things as they come. It's a nice transformation surrounded by gags and funny situations--comedy with heart. The main characters from THE HANGOVER series also undergo transformations. I think Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms' characters have the strongest arcs in the first film.

At the end of the day, it's your story. If you want just the gags, then I'm sure there's a producer/director/studio looking for the same, and this one just wasn't the right fit. But comedic characters do undergo transformations which add to the depth of the story, so the feedback may be worth considering, depending on your goals. :)

Honestly, it feels like you’re not hearing me. I’m not saying that when you write a comedy, it’s just gags and laughs. Of course there’s a main character, and of course they go through some kind of transformation.

In my film, the main heroine goes through a transformation — from a talkative, clumsy, messy secretary to a professional, competent one who knows her job and keeps everything under control. She does transform.

She also starts to understand that every person should perform the role and do the work they’re meant to do. For example, the tasks of God — and some people complain about God, saying He’s wrong or unfair, and so on. But she begins to realize that God has a mission that no human being could ever fulfill. That’s her transformation.

But she doesn’t have deep psychological issues. She doesn’t have childhood trauma, or any mental illnesses, or split personality, or anything like that.

Please understand — when you write a comedy and the audience reads that it’s a comedy, they go to see that movie to laugh, not to sit there and think, “Oh, what’s this person’s life like, what kind of problems do they have?” They want the opposite — to get away from problems.

Besides, I wrote that I see Dwayne Johnson as God in my film, together with Kaluuya. Because I want people to laugh at the idea that God doesn’t have to be only Morgan Freeman — He can also be this big, muscular, bald guy with jokes, charisma, and humor.

Thank you for reading!

I’d say writers deserve as many chances as they need, it’s all a part of our own character growth so the biggest sin would be cutting that off. I’ve pitched Finding Elpis loads of times by now and some execs I would 100% pitch to again, though maybe not the same project. As for comedy character growth, I loved Bruce Almighty, and I always interpreted his story as one where he learns that being God isn’t just about wish fulfillment; he has a huge responsibility, and even that there are things he can’t do with all his power (like will Grace to love him again). So he has to rely on his own abilities to get what he really wants/what matters to him. I’d say there’s plenty of psychological depth there, even if Jim Carrey is known for playing silly guys.

In that vein, maybe the exec felt that your protagonist was flat and didn’t go through a noticeable transformation, or maybe it wasn’t enough for that exec in particular. It’s hard to say, but ultimately comedy characters are still characters so they can have big transformations even from little flaws.

I reread the synopsis I sent, and I agree — I didn’t show the heroine’s transformation very clearly. That’s my mistake, and from now on I will be much more meticulous about this. I’m very grateful to the person I worked with during the pitch, because she really pointed out my mistakes. And I love it when someone shows me my mistakes. Now I know what I need to fix, so a big thanks to her.

But I’m sad that I can’t talk to her. I would have explained that this is a pure comedy. Really in the style of Jim Carrey — like The Mask, Bruce Almighty, Dumb and Dumber. That’s the kind of opera it is. I don’t want to make the heroine too deep, because then the audience starts thinking. I want that if this film is ever released, the audience comes to the screening, laughs wholeheartedly, and leaves.

For that reason, there’s Dwayne Johnson as God, Eddie Murphy as the Devil, a talking dog named Peter, and Scarlett, who because of her stupidity and naivety does things that are genuinely funny. And, by the way, according to the story, her only real comfort is watching the Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Here’s the synopsis I sent. Please read it and share your thoughts — what do you think? Although I’ve already been shown some mistakes in it, I will definitely work on fixing them.

SYNOPSIS

Scarlett is a clumsy secretary at a publishing agency. Everything

in her work and personal life is going awry; her only skill is

making witty jokes and wriggling out of awkward situations.

After a car accident, she ends up before God, who is so

disappointed in humanity that He decides to go on vacation with

the Devil. They decide to relax like humans on Earth, and both,

already angry at people, find themselves in various funny

situations. Scarlett is left in charge of the world for a month.

If she succeeds – she will return to Earth; if not – she will go

to Hell. She is supervised by the strict angel Lawrence, who

gradually falls in love with her.

Scarlett’s attempts to bring order to the world lead to chaos, and

the intrigues of the heavenly bureaucrat Laura make the situation

even more complicated. Desperate, Scarlett gathers world leaders

and addresses them on behalf of God. Some heed her words about

love and responsibility, others do not.

When God returns, He realizes that love is not a command, but a

dialogue. He decides henceforth to speak directly with leaders

once every 10 years. He brings Scarlett back to Earth already a

different person – confident, strong. In addition, He asks her to

become His speechwriter: from time to time, writing His speeches.

Aleksandr, I absolutely agree that pitch participants deserve not only a second chance, but also as many opportunities as it takes.

By the way...I like "The Secretary of God's" synopsis. (Here's wishing you plenty of success with this script and all your others!)

Alek, I like your concept. Without a Carrey type personality, it wouldn't work.

ON ONE MESSUP IN ONE CARREY FILM, 'LIAR", ONE ACTRESS FAMOUSLY SCREAMED 'OVERACTOR" AND EVERYONE LAUGHED.

Thank you very much for your comments and feedback!

I really like this idea Aleksandr Rozhnov, would 100% watch this movie :D

Thank you very much.

You're welcome, Aleksandr Rozhnov.

Jay Gladwell I had a similar thing happen to me when pitching Finding Elpis. I was suggested to think about changing Elpis from a rock band into a pop group aiming for fame and fortune across the galaxy. Mind you, I thought it would be a neat idea for a film that I would totally watch but it wasn't what I wanted to write (especially because it completely took away the achievement in ignorance angle, which is the entire point of the story). It was still a pass but definitely one of my more memorable experiences pitching lol

Overall, great job on the synopsis, Aleksandr Rozhnov.

Maybe change "find themselves in various funny situations" to "find themselves in funny situations." And maybe give one or two examples of the situations.

"Scarlett’s attempts to bring order to the world lead to chaos, and the intrigues of the heavenly bureaucrat Laura make the situation even more complicated." Maybe talk about the obstacles some more.

The end says "In addition, He asks her to become His speechwriter: from time to time, writing His speeches." You're saying the same thing twice. Maybe change that to "In addition, He hires her to write His speeches from time to time."

I agree, Maurice. Very helpful notes — I’ll make the corrections. It’s just that the length was limited, so I didn’t write much. Of course, if I were to write an extended synopsis, I could add situations and so on. But what you mentioned is important — I’ll take it into account. Thank you very much.

Your story is your story. Feedback, no matter from whom, should be to help you tell the best story you can, not try to change it into something it isn't.

'Deserve' seems to position the gatekeepers as somehow more worthy than the writer. I am new to this industry I've worked in highly complex industries for 30+ years and while every single industry has much to improve the idea that writers have to be 'perfect' from the first reading is hopefully not an overall approach gatekeepers are taking. Presumably, the gatekeepers would have insight to what is clever, unique, able to generate an audience with exposure, and presents routine topics in unusual or interesting ways. Even an expectation that a script is 'ready' when a pitch is made is not a reality. Getting a piece of film on TV or the big screen is such a collaborative and synergistic experience that hopefully assigned gatekeepers are looking for STORIES that will attract or develop an audience, not a 60-100 page script that is not in need of improvement.

Програма ChatGPT сказала:

I have the feeling that the gatekeepers aren’t really looking for unique stories that could shine on the big screen — they’re looking for people they feel comfortable working with. And those people already exist, so they just keep working with them.

That's a shame if accurate, and it probably is.

So, for emerging screenwriters, there are probably two paths. The first is to become someone convenient for one of the gatekeepers. The second is to find someone who’s part of that inner circle — but secretly hates everyone in it.

Why do I say that? Because I’ve personally experienced it. Here in Ukraine, one of the biggest production companies announced a pitch for a new TV series. I took part and submitted a synopsis — it was a thriller-drama sci-fi with a touch of patriotism. They liked it and reached out to me.

And since Ukrainian producers tend to copy their American counterparts, the questions they ask are quite similar. So, they started asking me things like, “What did you do before becoming a screenwriter?” — all kinds of pointless questions. Then they asked how I came up with my main character. I said, “With my head.” Then they asked where I see myself in five years. I said, “The same person, just five years older.”

But they never asked me a single question about my screenwriting craft. Not which screenwriting books I’ve read, not how I write, not how I’d build a cliffhanger for season two, or how I’d create a hook at the end of each episode. They didn’t ask how I’d balance the thriller-drama and sci-fi elements to keep the audience engaged. What they did care about was everything except writing.

And I’m a pretty sarcastic person, so I answered them sarcastically. Apparently, that made me “inconvenient” — not the type of screenwriter they wanted. They’re looking for someone who just does what they’re told and keeps quiet.

So, maybe the fastest way to break into the industry really is to find someone who’s part of it — but who secretly hates everyone inside and decides to help you just to spite them.

You're welcome, Aleksandr Rozhnov.

By the way, I’d like to share something with you. The synopsis “God’s Secretary” was actually the very first screenplay I ever wrote in my life. I didn’t start with short films or small sketches — I went straight into writing a full-length comedy, “God’s Secretary.”

Of course, since then, it has gone through many changes. Yes, I still have the very first draft written in Ukrainian. But if anyone ever wanted to bring it to life, it would definitely go through major rewrites — because that first draft isn’t really usable. I actually wrote it first as a film novella, and only later adapted it into the American screenplay format.

And I really love one of the characters there — a little dog named Peter Chihuahua, who lives with God and can talk. He sees himself as a kind of James Bond — bold, cunning, always scheming, charming, and full of ideas. He loves women, too! There’s even a moment where he shows up to the main heroine with a rose in his teeth and a bottle of champagne. Then he drinks the champagne from his bowl, falls asleep, and starts snoring.

And he’ll annoy Scarlett so much that she’ll decide to send him down to Earth. But the moment she does, he immediately gets hit by a truck again — and ends up right back in Heaven.

I really love that dog.

By the way, in this film, there’s a cheeky scene where Peter the dog shows a playful fondness for Scarlett’s foot, adding a bit of mischievous humor to the story.