Screenwriting : Ask Me Anything (AMA) 6/24 to 6/25- "What Makes a Project Stand Out to Producers and Executives" by Katrina Wolfe

You sure been doin' a lot of stuff during the past 30 years, I just realized that I been doing this kind of stuff for 61 years now. Haven't figured it out yet - always on the verge. One observation I'll pass on is this: I don't think younger folk have must patience for history. They know everything - it's their job to teach us, not to learn from us. All the best on your plan.

If I am using characters owned by a studio in my screenplay, what is the best way to share my story with that particular studio?

Katrina Wolfe Looking forward to this! Congratulations on a stellar career!

Hi Katrina Wolfe - thanks so much for having this AMA and spending your day with us. Question(s): 1. Beyond the script, what are the supporting materials make a project more attractive to a development exec? 2. When you see a script concept you love, what are the first questions you ask yourself about getting it made? Thanks so much in advance!

Hi, hope you are great. I've been wondering. What is it about a newbies pilot script that can attract managers, agents or producers. Not necessarily a pilot but a script. What if the script is very interesting but has few formatting or certain mistakes. What should a newbie lookout for and avoid when submitting their scripts.

Do we ask questions in this thread or the questions should be asked at a separate forum?

Katrina, I truly appreciate you taking the time to share your wealth of experience with us. As an expert who has spent decades at the heart of major studios, how do you see the 'artistic and marketing structures' being reshaped in light of the rapid acceleration of AI? Furthermore, how can we, as producers and directors, maintain the 'core of creativity' and ensure that our human vision remains the driving force behind our work amidst this massive digital transformation?

After a newbie writes a TV Pilot and a screenplay— two good samples of writing—who is or what comes next (always figuring that more writing will be ‘assumed’): is it seeking representation/management/agent… do pitches-written and/or or verbal… or??

Thank you for doing this, Katrina Wolfe. You ran casting before you produced, so you read scripts through a lens most execs don’t say out loud: who actually plays this. My current feature is an Appalachian folk-horror piece whose lead is a woman in her early 50s — a dramatic, against-type role, the kind a strong actor who’s spent a career boxed into one thing might take a real swing at. So I’m curious about packaging from the outside: when you read a spec from a writer you don’t know, how much of that first read is the script versus the roles, and what makes a part on the page pull talent of that caliber — the role itself, the world, the specificity of voice? What turns a strong role into a yes from an actor who has every reason to say no?

Thanks so much for giving your time and expertise. When creating decks, the current trend seems to have one created for several opportunities: an investor deck, a lookbook, a creative pitchdeck, and a casting deck. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this as we're in our next funding round for our psychological horror thriller, The Doll Keeper. Many thanks.

Hello Katrina Wolfe My question is it good to have an original idea for a script?

Katrina hello, I am one who trusts the wisdom of crowds. Hence since I wrote it in the late winter of '25 my screenplay is entered in over 50 film fests with screenplay competitions. So far it's won 4 Best Screenplay Awards, 11 Official Selections, 2 Finalists , 3 Semi-Finalists. How do I leverage these global results to move my project closer to production and it's Gen Z, demographic audience? Thanking you in advance for your insight!

Katrina Wolfe,

I’m a new screenwriter and I have two quick questions I’d love to get your professional take on.

1- How important is a pitch deck to you when reviewing a project (perhaps on a scale of 0-100%)?

2- As a producer, which do you usually value more when allocating a film’s budget: strong directing and performances, or visual elements like production design and special effects?

I appreciate any insights you can share. Thanks!

Best,

Mohammad.

It's a privilege having you here Katrina Wolfe! Writers, grab this chance to ask Katrina anything. Looking forward learning from you!

Dear Katrina,

1. For an international emerging writer-director trying to make a mid-budget action thriller as a debut feature, what would make producers take the project seriously — a strong script, pitch deck, proof-of-concept short?

2. And what are the biggest concerns producers usually have when a first-time feature writer-director wants to direct their own action thriller, especially when the project involves emotionally grounded but physically intense action?

3. And what practical steps should someone in my position take to move in the right direction to approaching serious producers, financiers, or production companies?

Hi Katrina, I’m an independent screenwriter from Türkiye developing projects for the U.S. market.

From a producer’s perspective, what separates a screenplay that gets remembered from one that gets passed on, even when both are professionally written?

For writers without industry connections, what is the most effective path to get a strong script noticed by producers and executives, and what qualities make you stop and seriously consider a project?

Also, when evaluating a script from an unknown writer, are you looking primarily at the writing itself, the commercial potential of the concept, or the writer’s long-term potential?

Hi Katrina. I have a 17min vertical psychological thriller , "Paranoia" that was released in REELSHORT app in the USA and I would like to convert to a feature film. How should I go about this. Thx in advance.

Hello Katrina,

Thank you for hosting this AMA. Unfortunately, due to some circumstances, I won't be able to participate live. I've included my questions below and will read your responses when I'm able to return.

I'm an aspiring screenwriter from India and have recently completed and copyrighted my feature screenplay, "SALVATORE – THE FIRST HERO."

Thank you for your time and insights.

1. What materials should be prepared besides the screenplay (pitch deck, treatment, one-pager, etc.)?

2. What is the best way for an unknown writer to build industry relationships without living in Los Angeles?

3. How can a writer build credibility before getting professional representation?

4. What are the most common reasons managers reject promising scripts?

5. Should an emerging writer focus on finding a manager, an agent, or a producer first? Why?

6. If you received 100 screenplay submissions, what would make one stand out immediately?

7. What makes a producer request a script after reading a logline or synopsis?

8. As an unrepped writer from India, what is the most effective path to getting a feature screenplay read by producers in Hollywood?

Hi Katrina, I have a high-concept supernatural thriller pilot based on my novel that involves real-world historical black-ops programs (like remote viewing).

Given how mainstream these topics have become compared to twenty years ago (when I first wrote this story)--do you find that producers are actively looking for supernatural thrillers rooted in actual historical conspiracy, or do you prefer purely fictional world-building?

Katrina, in terms of generating a script request from you, what do you personally wish to see covered in a Stage 32 Written Pitch submission? Does a compelling emotional arc to the story matter more than emphasis on highlight beats or scenes, or is a hybrid structure that attempts to include both (tough to do in a 2-page pitch) your ideal?

Hi Katrina,

Thank you for doing this AMA.

From your experience as a producer, how do you think about the "first audience moment" for an independent film?

For example, a world premiere at a festival often serves as a marketing and audience-building event in addition to a screening. Do you think there is room for structured online premiere events that create a similar sense of occasion for audiences, or is the value of a premiere still largely tied to festivals and physical screenings?

I'd be interested in your perspective on what actually makes a premiere meaningful and successful from a producer's standpoint.

Thank you!

"Hi Katrina! I'm developing a high-concept action franchise called DEAD SIGNAL — a federal double-agent rises from the dead to dismantle a global trafficking empire. Would love your thoughts on what makes a multi-part action franchise stand out to executives!"

I recently completed a contained psychological horror screenplay, entered it in Stage 32 contests, uploaded it to The Black List, and received positive feedback from my beta reader. At this stage, would you recommend prioritizing contests, paid Black List evaluations, querying managers/producers, or some combination of all three? What path have you seen create the most momentum for an unknown writer with a strong contained horror script?

Hi Katrina! I'm an independent writer-director from India, working on an English-language psychological thriller targeting international OTT and Hollywood markets. I have SWA certification, a completed demo film, and my script is in final polish stage.

My question: As a producer/executive, what specifically makes an international writer's project stand out to you — beyond the script itself? Is it the demo work, the packaging, the pitch, or something else entirely

Hello katrina, my question is this;

You've worked across major studios and independent productions. In today's market, how do you distinguish a truly original concept from one that simply follows current trends? What makes a project feel fresh to you?

and the second one;

I spend a lot of time writing educational and documentary-style scripts, where audience retention is key. Are there any storytelling techniques from film and television that you believe every writer regardless of format should master?

Katrina thank you for doing this. Your path is unusual. You read as a reader then cast then developed then produced. Same script, four rooms, four different fears.

My question is about the handoff from page to package. A script can read beautifully and then start to wobble the second real money and real talent get involved and everyone wants room to maneuver.

What on the page makes a project survive that transition. Is it a concept that holds its shape no matter who you cast or a voice so specific the talent feels protected by it. Curious which one you have actually seen carry a project through.

Hi Katrina. I have an idea for a series based on my 25+ years of adventures as a top interior designer to the ordinary and the powerful in the DC area. Political fight with a White House Chief of Staff client? Yeah, I have a great story. Senator found in a client's bathroom- a client who was not his wife? Seen that. Design house raided by the DEA? I can check that box. Crazy client who took her first husband's ashes on her honeymoon with her second husband? I felt the fall-out.

Think everything you love about HGTV - BUT THE OPPOSITE - told in the voice of a well-published, tv-experienced designer who's a little bit Martha Stewart and a whole lot of Nikki Glaser. I don't want to be in the series. I just want to share the good, the bad, the ugly and always funny stories.

Wondering what comes first- a "pitch deck" or a script? How can I share my series idea with the right people who can make it come to life or tell me to go home? Where should I start? Who should I share this with? Thanks in advance for any advice you can provide.

Hi Katrina! Thanks in advance for taking my question. "I have a completed six-part prestige limited series on a 20thcentury cultural icon — life rights secured, estate aligned, WGA-registered, repped, now in packaging. For a completed limited series, what's the most effective packaging sequence — showrunner first, then talent, then buyer, or talent first to attract the showrunner? Where do writer-producers most often get the order wrong?

Dear Katrina, thank you for your time. I'm a screenwriter living in Florence, Italy. There are real possibilities, if a producer is interested, to work with online meetings.? Another question. Can I publish my screenplays on Stage32? Is it useful, are they read, and can my ideas be stolen?

Hello, Katrina Wolfe!!! Thank you so much for doing this AMA. I've written several female-led genre scripts. After the #MeToo Movement, why is it still so hard to get financing for POC female-led genre projects, especially female leads over 40?

Hi Katrina Wolfe I've written a screenplay adaptation of a bestselling, multi-award-winning Canadian YA period romance with a supernatural twist, for which I control the screen rights. It requires a moderate budget.

Given the enduring audience appetite for period dramas and literary adaptations, I'm curious why projects in this space often face resistance at the earliest stages of development. What are financiers, producers, and distributors seeing as the primary obstacles? More importantly, what factors help a project gain traction?

My screenplay has already received multiple awards, and the underlying novel carries significant recognition and prestige, yet breaking through the development barrier remains challenging.

Thank you so much,

Steven

Hi Katrina Wolfe, thank you for having time for us. I am impressed by your achievements and you are an inspiration for all of us. You rock the house :))

I am Sandra from Portugal and I have two questions:

1. I have a female-driven romantic drama about a celebrated New York author and a London human-rights director who fall in love under intense public scrutiny. The script has gone through multiple rounds of development and I am now focusing on packaging. From a producer’s perspective, what makes you look at a character-driven romantic drama and think, “This is a project worth building around”?

2. If a writer has a polished feature screenplay, a pitch deck, a strong synopsis, positive industry feedback, and is beginning to seek producing partners, what would you focus on next: further development, producer outreach, director attachments, or continuing to build industry relationships?

Thank you for your insights, and all the good energy you share with us.

Hi Katrina, thank you for doing this AMA.

When working with early-stage material, what are the key elements that make a psychological thriller or sci-fi project stand out to producers, even if it’s not fully developed yet?

And what are the most common issues you see that prevent a strong concept from translating into a compelling project?

In your experience, what separates a strong concept from a project that actually feels compelling on the page?

From a producer’s perspective, what makes a story feel adaptable for film or television?

What are the key signals that a project could translate well to screen?

What are the most common mistakes you see in thriller or sci-fi projects that prevent them from reaching a professional level?

Hi Katrina Wolfe ! Appreciate you giving of your time and insight :) I am in the process of optioning an unpublished book - what is one (or two) thing(s) that I should be particularly focused on than when optioning an already published book?

Hi everyone, thanks so much for joining me today, and a big thank you to everyone who's already posted questions! I’m excited to dive in shortly.

I’ll be working my way through every question in the order they were submitted and will continue to respond for the next 24 hrs (so keep them coming!). Looking forward to a great discussion:).

@Josh Altorfer -

Great question. The first thing to understand is that major studios generally cannot accept unsolicited material as a matter of policy. This applies whether the screenplay is based on their existing characters and IP or is an entirely original project. The reason is largely legal: they want to avoid disputes over claims that they used someone's ideas without permission.

As a result, there typically isn't a direct way for a writer to send a screenplay to a studio on their own. Material is usually submitted through a professional intermediary such as an agent, manager, attorney, producer, or other established industry representative who has a relationship with the studio and can make a formal submission.

When it comes to studio-owned characters or franchises, there is an additional challenge: the studio already controls that intellectual property and generally develops it through its own internal processes and approved creative teams. Outside writers are rarely able to submit unsolicited takes on existing studio-owned characters.

So if your goal is to get that specific screenplay produced by the studio, the path is generally through building a professional track record, obtaining representation, and eventually being considered for assignment work on existing properties. For most writers, the more practical strategy is to focus primarily on creating outstanding original material that can be freely circulated and that helps open doors to those future opportunities.

There is one historical caveat worth mentioning. For many years, it was common in television for aspiring TV writers to write "spec episodes" of existing shows and have those scripts submitted by their representatives as writing samples. The goal wasn't to sell that episode to the show—it was to demonstrate that the writer could capture the voice, tone, characters, and structure of an existing series and therefore might be a good candidate for a writers' room. While the industry has shifted heavily toward original pilot samples in recent years, particularly in streaming, some showrunners and executives still appreciate seeing evidence that a writer can successfully write within an established franchise or series.

@Leonardo Ramirez - Great questions.

1. Beyond the script, what supporting materials make a project more attractive to a development executive?

The script is always the most important thing, but a few supporting materials can definitely help.

A strong pitch deck can be very useful, particularly if it helps communicate the tone, visual world, audience, and why the project is commercially relevant today. The key is that it should enhance the script, not compensate for weaknesses in it.

I also appreciate seeing a concise writer's statement or creator vision (whether it lives in the pitch deck or in the cover e-mail) that explains why this story matters to you personally and what makes your perspective unique. Sometimes that personal connection is what elevates a project from "well-written" to "interested in pursuing."

For projects that are further along, thoughtful information about comps, audience, budget range, can also be helpful, but only if they're realistic and demonstrate an understanding of the marketplace (I'd generally recommend leaving aspirational casting ideas out of the deck). And of course, if there are already any attractive attachments to the project (director, actors in particular) then that will always catch any producer or executive's attention, as it makes it much easier for them to champion the project internally and/or to otherwise help push it forward towards production.

That said, I've never gotten involved with a project solely because of a great deck, and I've never passed on a great script because it didn't have one. The script still carries the most weight.

2. When I see a script concept I love, what are the first questions I ask myself about getting it made?

After "Do I love this?" my brain immediately starts asking practical questions:

* Who is the audience?

* What is the likely budget range?

* Is the concept easy to communicate?

* Is there a clear marketing hook?

* What talent might realistically respond to this?

* Is this something distributors, streamers, financiers, or buyers would understand how to sell?

* Does the execution feel unique enough to stand out in a crowded marketplace?

* Can this actually be produced for a reasonable cost relative to its commercial potential?

I also ask a question that writers don't always think about: why this project, right now?

Sometimes a script is very well written but doesn't feel urgent or timely. Other times a project taps into a cultural conversation, an audience need, or a market opportunity that makes it feel immediately relevant.

That said, I should add that I'm not purely analytical in my approach. Throughout my career, I've often followed my gut when I fall in love with a project, even when it feels a little riskier on paper than conventional wisdom might suggest. Some of the most memorable films get made because someone championed them despite the odds.

The key is balancing that passion with practical realities. For example, a creatively ambitious, unconventional, or niche project may be a much easier "yes" for me if I can see a path to making it successfully as a micro-budget or low-budget film. At that level, there's more room to take creative swings, experiment, and support unique voices because the financial risk is lower. The same project might become much harder to justify if it requires a $20M-$50M budget and therefore needs a much broader audience to succeed.

Ultimately, the projects that get the most traction are the ones where the creative and commercial conversations point in the same direction. But I never want the business considerations to completely crowd out the creative instinct that made me excited about a project in the first place.

@Hillary Atter-Annor - Great question.

The good news is that most managers, agents, producers, and executives are not looking for perfection, especially from a newer writer. What they're looking for is evidence of talent.

When I read a script from an unknown writer, I'm asking myself questions like:

* Does this writer have a distinctive voice?

* Can they tell a compelling story?

* Can they create memorable characters?

* Do they understand conflict, tension, pacing, and emotional payoff?

* Do they write in a visual, cinematic way?

* Do they understand how to use images, behavior, and action -- not just dialogue -- to tell a story?

* Do I want to read another script by this person?

If the answer to those questions is yes, I can usually forgive some imperfections.

A few minor formatting mistakes, an occasional typo, or a scene that runs too long generally won't kill a script if the writing is exceptional. What is much harder to overlook are problems with the fundamentals of storytelling: weak characters, lack of conflict, unclear stakes, a meandering plot, or a concept that doesn't feel fresh or distinctive.

For newer writers, I think one of the biggest mistakes is focusing so much on formatting that they neglect the things that actually make readers excited: a strong concept, a unique voice, compelling characters, and emotional engagement.

That said, you do want the script to feel professional. If there are constant formatting issues, spelling errors, grammar mistakes, or the screenplay doesn't resemble industry-standard format, it can create the impression that the writer hasn't taken the time to learn the craft.

My advice would be: focus first on writing the most engaging script possible.

The goal isn't perfection, it's to make the reader forget they're evaluating a script and become completely absorbed in the story.

And one final thought: many representatives aren't just looking for a great script, they're looking for a writer with a career ahead of them. A fantastic sample may get someone's attention, but showing that you have multiple strong ideas, can write consistently at a high level, and ideally have samples across multiple genres or tones can be incredibly valuable. It demonstrates range, professionalism, and that you're not a one-script wonder. Ultimately, reps are often investing as much in the writer as they are in the script itself, and the ability to continue generating excellent material is often what turns initial interest into a long-term professional relationship.

@Shahzad Haider - you can ask your questions right here:)

Fantastic and thorough Katrina Wolfe! I have a creative vision statement but never thought of incorporating that in the decks. Thank you so much!

@Gina Touma - Thank you for the thoughtful question.

As a member of Producers United, I can tell you that AI is a constant topic of conversation -- and concern. Producers, executives, financiers, distributors, and filmmakers are all trying to understand what these tools will mean for the future of our industry.

My view is that AI will absolutely reshape parts of both the creative and business sides of filmmaking. We're already seeing it impact areas such as concept art, pitch materials, pre-vis, localization, marketing assets, audience analysis, and workflow automation.

That said, the idea that generative AI is simply going to replace writers, actors, and directors is not something I personally subscribe to. I think AI will transform workflows and create new efficiencies, but the notion that it will eliminate the need for human storytellers, performers, and creative leaders feels unlikely to me. AI is very good at identifying patterns and synthesizing what already exists. What it is much less good at is bringing a unique worldview, emotional truth, lived experience, taste, and artistic judgment to a piece of work.

I also wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see some form of industry-standard disclosure or certification around "ethically sourced" AI, similar in spirit to the old "No Animals Were Harmed" certification. Audiences, creators, and rights holders are increasingly concerned about where training data comes from and how AI is being used.

And perhaps this is a bit optimistic, but I can also envision a future where there is actually a premium placed on projects that use no generative AI at all -- particularly on the elevated arthouse/festival film level (sort of akin to the 'Dogme '95' movement out of Scandinavia in the 1990's). As audiences become increasingly inundated with AI-generated content and AI "slop," authenticity may become more valuable, not less. Just as handmade goods often command a premium in a mass-produced world, I can imagine "human-made" storytelling becoming a meaningful differentiator.

Ultimately, I truly believe that audiences don't fall in love with content because it is efficient. They fall in love with it because it moves them. I think that fundamental truth is unlikely to change, regardless of how powerful the technology becomes.

@Heidi Patullo - Great question.

The honest answer is that there isn't one universally correct next step, because different writers break in through different doors. However, if you've written a strong pilot and a strong feature screenplay, my first question would be:

"Are these truly industry-ready samples?"

If the answer is yes, then I would generally focus on three parallel tracks:

1. Continue writing.

This may sound obvious, but one of the most common mistakes I see is writers treating their first two strong samples as the finish line rather than the starting line. The industry wants to know that you can do it again. Having additional samples, ideas, and projects in development makes you much more attractive to managers, agents, producers, and executives.

2. Pursue representation and industry relationships.

For many writers, a manager is often the most realistic first representation target because managers tend to be more focused on developing careers and discovering emerging talent. Agents frequently come later, although there are certainly exceptions.

At the same time, don't become overly fixated on representation as the only path forward. Many writers first gain traction through fellowships, contests, networking, referrals, producers, executives, directors, or other industry contacts who respond to the work itself.

3. Begin developing your pitching skills.

Even if nobody is asking you to formally pitch yet, you should be able to clearly and compellingly discuss your projects, your voice as a writer, the types of stories you want to tell, and what else you're working on.

One thing newer writers sometimes don't realize is that when a manager, producer, or executive likes a script, one of the next questions is often:

"What else do you have?"

That's why I generally encourage writers not only to have additional completed material, but also several other ideas they're actively developing. It's helpful to be able to talk about multiple concepts across different genres and tones -- even if some of them haven't been written yet. People are often evaluating not just the script they've read, but your potential career and your ability to continually generate fresh, marketable, and creatively exciting ideas. It can be reassuring to know that you have a deep well of concepts and aren't putting all your eggs in one basket.

Ultimately, the goal is not just to sell one screenplay or one pilot. The goal is to build a sustainable career. The writers who tend to gain momentum are those who have strong samples, continue generating new material, can articulate their creative identity, and are actively building relationships throughout the industry.

Hi Katrina! You’ve worked across very bold tonal material. When a writer is pitching an edgy comedy, dark comedy, or elevated genre piece today, what tells you the tone is truly controlled rather than just provocative? Is it the character engine, the set-piece logic, the emotional stakes, the comps, the first ten pages, or something else?

@Adam Spencer - Great question.

I actually start by looking at the script on its own merits. Is it pulling me in? Am I emotionally engaged? Am I still thinking about it after I've finished reading it?

One of the biggest indicators for me is whether the story lingers in my mind. When I find myself thinking about a script for days afterward -- even if it's not perfect -- that's usually a very good sign.

Interestingly, I don't think I've ever encountered a truly great script that wasn't also highly castable. Actors, like everyone else, are looking for quality material. They want to be part of projects that are compelling, emotionally resonant, and creatively exciting.

So I wouldn't say I consciously decide whether to pursue a project based on the roles themselves. However, having spent years in casting, it's impossible for me not to occasionally wear my casting hat while reading. What tends to catch my attention is when I find myself spontaneously brainstorming potential or aspirational cast ideas while I'm still reading the script. When that starts happening, it's often another sign that there's something special on the page.

As for what makes a role attractive to a high-caliber actor, I think it's rarely just one thing. It's usually some combination of complexity, emotional depth, originality, and the opportunity to do something they haven't done before.

In fact, one thing I've observed repeatedly throughout my career is that actors often get most excited by roles that are completely outside of what they're normally asked to play. Many actors spend years being offered variations of the same character, so a chance to surprise audiences—or even surprise themselves—can be extremely appealing.

As for your Appalachian folk-horror example, Best Actress winner Olivia Colman filmed the low-budget Appalachian thriller Them That Follow shortly before shooting The Favourite. So you never know. If the role is distinctive enough and offers an actor the chance to do something they haven't done before, it may appeal to people you wouldn't initially expect.

@Diane Sismour - Thanks for the question!

My view is that decks generally fall into two major buckets (or perhaps two and a half): an investor/pitch deck and a creative deck/lookbook. There are certainly some nuances between a lookbook and a full creative deck, but in practice those terms are often used interchangeably in the film world.

From there, I may tailor those materials for specific situations or audiences. For example, if I'm sending materials to an actor or their representatives, I will often include that actor's image in the character section of the deck for the role I'm targeting. The core deck remains largely the same, but certain elements can be customized depending on who's receiving it.

I also think people sometimes overstate the distinction between investor decks and creative decks. An investor deck shouldn't just be numbers and financial projections. Investors are investing in a story, a vision, and a team. They still need to understand the project creatively, the director's vision, the tone, the audience, and why the film is compelling in the first place.

One thing I would emphasize is that presentation matters. I see a surprising number of decks that are poorly laid out, use dated-looking fonts, have weak imagery, or simply don't feel visually cohesive. Whether we like it or not, the deck is often someone's first introduction to your project, and first impressions matter.

A well-designed deck with striking visuals, strong image selection, thoughtful typography, and a clean layout immediately signals professionalism. Conversely, a deck that feels amateurish can unfortunately create a negative impression before someone has even read a word of the script. That's not to say style is more important than substance -- it isn't -- but the aesthetics are your first opportunity to grab someone's attention and get them excited enough to keep reading.

Honestly, I think it's perfectly acceptable -- and often preferable -- to have one strong, well-designed working deck that effectively communicates the story, vision, tone, audience, team, and overall opportunity. If it also touches on the investment proposition enough to spark initial interest, that's often sufficient for a first conversation. You can always get into more granular financial details, projections, waterfall structures, recoupment scenarios, and so forth once an investor expresses serious interest.

@Nicholas P - Absolutely. In fact, one of the things that most consistently gets my attention is originality.

That said, "original" doesn't necessarily mean something that's never been done before. Most stories are built on familiar genres, themes, and storytelling traditions. What's often more important is having a fresh angle, a unique perspective, an unexpected world, a distinctive voice, or characters we haven't quite seen before.

For example, a horror movie doesn't need to reinvent the entire genre to feel original. It may simply explore a familiar fear in a new way, be set in a unique environment, or approach the material from a perspective that feels personal and specific to the writer.

The projects that tend to stand out are those where I feel like I'm experiencing something I haven't quite seen before. As an executive and producer, I read a lot of scripts, so when a script surprises me—in a good way—that's often a very positive sign.

So yes, originality is important. Just remember that originality isn't necessarily about inventing a completely new wheel. Sometimes it's about putting your own unique spin on a wheel that already exists.

Thank you Katrina Wolfe

@Chris Ducey - First of all, congratulations. Writing a screenplay is an accomplishment in itself, and accumulating that many placements, selections, and awards suggests that the script is clearly resonating with readers.

That said, I would encourage you to view contests and screenplay competitions as a means rather than an end.

The most important question isn't "How many awards has the script won?" It's "How can I use that validation to generate industry relationships and opportunities?"

For example, if a producer, manager, actor, or executive is deciding whether to read your script, being able to say it has won multiple screenplay awards and received numerous official selections can absolutely help establish credibility and encourage them to take a look. I have a good friend who won a major screenplay competition last year and it led to a number of incoming interest from representatives. So I'd make sure those accolades are prominently featured in your pitch materials, query letters, and anywhere you're presenting the project.

I would also encourage you to think carefully about who the most likely buyers, producers, financiers, directors, or talent might be for this particular project and begin targeting those people directly rather than simply continuing to accumulate contest placements.

As for the Gen Z audience specifically, I'd ask myself a separate question: what is it about the story that will connect with them? Awards can help get industry attention, but ultimately audiences respond to compelling characters, emotional authenticity, and themes that feel relevant to their lives.

One thing I've learned over the years is that the industry pays attention when multiple independent sources are telling them the same thing (to your point about the 'wisdom of groups'!). Contest success can be one signal. Strong coverage can be another. Interest from talent can be another. Interest from producers can be another. The goal is to build momentum from multiple directions at once.

So my advice would be: celebrate the accolades, use them as social proof, but don't rely on them alone. Focus on turning that validation into conversations, relationships, and opportunities that move the project closer to actual production.

Hi Katrina - thanks for doing this! Say you are deciding between two scripts to work on. Script one has great character development and arcs and tight dialogue and generally looks a little more professional. Script two has an awesome premise and the general vibe of the script is a lot better -- like you just want to hang out in the world. Both scripts struggle where the other ones excels. Which are you choosing to work with?

Obviously, all of the above are important and there are a lot of other components in the decision, but I'm trying to understand what has more potential to catch a producer's eye early on and potentially carry a script through the development process.

Hi Katrina,

I’m a 15 years old girl with autism from Hungary (Europe). My big dream is to become a director, producer, and screenwriter in the US’ film industry in the next 5 years.

I think maybe a director under 20 would be very interesting for the audience, if the critics loves their movie, so I wonder the director’s age doesn’t matter, but the movie itself is do.. What do you think about my view?

I also have a question:

- On my future sets, can I play music for the cast and crew on my phone in the catering? :-)

@Mohammad Ali Ranjbar - Hi Mohammad, great questions.

1. How important is a pitch deck?

If I had to put a number on it, I'd probably say somewhere around 15-20% when weighing its importance against the script itself.

The script is still by far the most important element. I've never pursued a project because it had a great deck, and I've never passed on a great script because it didn't have one.

That said, I strongly recommend having a beautifully designed, visually arresting, and cohesive deck. A great deck can communicate tone, visual style, audience, world-building, and the overall creative vision for the project in a way that a logline or synopsis simply can't. It can also help persuade someone to read the script in the first place.

One thing I would emphasize, as I mentioned in another response to a deck-related question on this thread, is that aesthetics matter. I see a lot of decks with dated-looking fonts, weak imagery, cluttered layouts, and a generally amateur feel. Your deck is often the first thing someone sees, so putting genuine effort into the design and visual presentation can make a meaningful difference. The deck may not be as important as the script, but it is often your first opportunity to grab someone's attention and communicate that you have a clear vision for the project. A visually compelling, professional-looking deck can help create enthusiasm before someone has even read a page of the screenplay.

My view is: if you've spent months or years writing the script, why not put your best foot forward and include a strong deck as well? Even if the script is doing most of the heavy lifting, a great deck can help create excitement and momentum before someone ever turns to page one.

2. Strong directing and performances vs. production design and visual effects?

Generally speaking, I would choose strong writing, directing, and performances every time.

Audiences will forgive a surprising amount if they are emotionally invested in the characters and story. It's much harder to compensate for weak storytelling with production value alone.

That's not to say production design, cinematography, and visual effects aren't important—they absolutely are. Some genres, particularly science fiction, fantasy, action, and certain horror films, require a high level of visual execution. But if I have limited resources, I usually want to make sure the money is first supporting the elements that most directly affect story, character, and performance.

One of the biggest mistakes I see in independent filmmaking is spending money trying to make a movie look bigger than it is instead of leaning into what the project does best. Some of the most effective films I've seen were modestly budgeted but had terrific scripts, strong directors, and memorable performances.

I would also add that we're living in a time when visual effects, post-production tools, virtual production, AI-assisted workflows, and other technologies are rapidly driving down the cost of certain types of visual execution. While great VFX work is still expensive at the highest levels, filmmakers today can accomplish things on relatively modest budgets that would have been prohibitively expensive even a decade ago.

At the end of the day, people may come for the spectacle, but they stay for the story.

How important is 'white space' in a screenplay for you?

@Ranjani Arun - Great questions.

1. For an international emerging writer-director trying to make a mid-budget action thriller as a debut feature, what would make producers take the project seriously?

The script is still the foundation. If the screenplay doesn't work, nothing else matters.

That said, for a first-time feature writer-director, supporting materials become more important. A strong deck helps communicate your vision, tone, visual style, and understanding of the market. A proof of concept can be valuable, but I would place just as much emphasis on having strong directing samples. Short films, commercials, music videos, branded content, or other work that demonstrates your ability to execute visually can go a long way toward building confidence.

If I had to rank them, I'd generally say:

1. Great script

2. Evidence that you can direct and execute the vision

3. Strong deck and supporting materials

4. What are the biggest concerns producers have when a first-time writer-director wants to direct their own action thriller?

The biggest concern usually isn't the writing. It's execution.

Action is one of the most difficult genres to pull off because it involves not only story and performances, but also stunt work, safety, logistics, coverage, visual effects, and often a larger budget.

Producers are asking:

* Can this person realistically execute the film they're envisioning?

* Can they manage a crew and make decisions under pressure?

* Can they deliver the movie on schedule and on budget?

You should also be prepared for the reality that executives, producers, financiers, or sales companies may suggest bringing in a more experienced director. If directing the film yourself is important, be prepared to clearly articulate why you're the right person to tell this story and execute this vision.

One reason financiers are sometimes comfortable backing first-time feature directors on action films is when those directors come from backgrounds such as stunt coordination, second unit, action choreography, or first AD work. If that's not your background, attaching an experienced cinematographer with action credentials and a strong stunt coordinator can help provide reassurance.

3. What practical steps should someone in your position take?

First, make sure the script is exceptional.

Second, build a body of directing work that demonstrates your abilities.

Third, be realistic about scale. Many first-time feature directors intentionally make a smaller, more achievable feature first in order to get past the "first-time feature director" hurdle. Once they've successfully delivered a feature, it often becomes easier to get a larger, more ambitious project financed and produced.

Finally, build relationships and surround yourself with experienced collaborators. Producers, financiers, and production companies are investing in people as much as projects. The more evidence you can provide that you can execute at a high level, the more seriously your project will be taken.

@Koray KeleŞ - thanks for your great questions.

For me, the difference between a screenplay that gets remembered and one that gets passed on is often surprisingly simple: does it stay with me?

I read a lot of scripts. Most are professionally written. Far fewer continue occupying space in my head days later. When I'm still thinking about the characters, moments, themes, or world after I've finished reading, that's usually a sign that the writer has done something special.

It's not always about perfection, either. Sometimes a script can have flaws, but it has a distinctive voice, an unforgettable character, an original perspective, or an emotional impact that makes it difficult to forget.

For writers without industry connections, I think the most effective path is still to write exceptional material and then be proactive about creating opportunities. That can mean contests, fellowships, pitch events, networking, managers, referrals, platforms like Stage 32, or reaching out to people who are genuinely appropriate for the material. There is no single magic doorway into the industry. Most careers are built through a combination of great work, persistence, relationships, and timing.

As for what makes me stop and seriously consider a project, I'm usually looking for some combination of:

* A strong concept or hook

* A distinctive voice

* Memorable characters

* Emotional engagement

* A visual and cinematic approach to storytelling

* Some element that feels fresh or surprising

One thing I would add is that I don't really evaluate a script differently because the writer is unknown. Every script should be evaluated on its own merits. The questions I'm asking are essentially the same whether the writer is brand new or already established: Is this compelling? Is it well executed? Does it move me? Can I see an audience for it?

That said, when I'm evaluating a script from an unknown writer and I love it, I do find myself thinking beyond the script itself. I'm asking whether this person has a career ahead of them. Do they have other ideas? Can they continue generating fresh, marketable, creatively exciting material?

So the answer is really all three. I'm evaluating the writing itself, the commercial potential of the concept, and, if I respond strongly to the material, the writer's long-term potential. A great script may get someone's attention. A great writer with multiple strong ideas is often what turns that attention into a long-term professional relationship.

@Mudasir Shora - Congratulations on the vertical short!

The first thing I would want to know is what kind of agreement you signed with ReelShort. Do you still control the feature adaptation rights, or were any sequel, remake, television, feature film, derivative work, or underlying rights granted to ReelShort as part of the deal?

Before spending significant time or money developing a feature version, I'd make sure you have a clear understanding of exactly what rights you still control.

Assuming the feature rights remain yours, I would start by asking whether the concept genuinely contains enough material to sustain a feature-length story. A 17-minute short can be an excellent proof of concept, but expanding it to 90-120 minutes requires more than simply adding scenes. You'll typically need deeper character arcs, additional story layers, more world-building, and often a broader thematic exploration.

The good news is that having a produced short already gives you something many writers don't have: proof that the concept works on screen. Depending on the quality of the finished piece and the viewership metrics, that can become a useful part of your pitch when approaching producers, financiers, or production companies.

I would also think carefully about what makes the project unique in the psychological thriller space. If you're asking someone to invest in a feature adaptation, they'll want to know why this particular story deserves a feature-length treatment rather than remaining a short-form project.

From a practical standpoint, my next steps would be:

* Confirm ownership of the feature rights.

* Develop a detailed feature treatment or outline.

* Write the feature screenplay, or collaborate with a writer if that's not your primary skill set.

* Identify what new story elements justify the expansion to feature length.

* Create a strong deck for the feature version.

* Leverage the existence of the ReelShort project as proof of concept and validation of audience interest.

And one final thought: if the short performed particularly well on the platform, that's not something to bury in the fine print. Producers and financiers are increasingly interested in projects that have already demonstrated some level of audience engagement. If you have meaningful viewership numbers, completion rates, audience feedback, or other metrics, those can become valuable assets when presenting the feature version.

@Sumit Gupta - Thank you for the questions, and congratulations on completing your screenplay.

Several of your questions are related, so I'll answer them together.

Regarding materials, I generally recommend having, at minimum, a strong logline, a one-page synopsis, a longer synopsis or treatment, and a well-designed pitch deck. The screenplay is still the most important asset, but if you've spent months or years writing it, why not put your best foot forward and have professional supporting materials as well?

As for building relationships without living in Los Angeles, the good news is that geography matters far less than it used to. Between virtual meetings, online communities, festivals, competitions, fellowships, Stage 32, social media, and professional networking platforms, many meaningful industry relationships now begin remotely. Focus on building genuine connections rather than simply collecting contacts.

In terms of credibility, strong writing remains the single most important factor. Contest placements, fellowships, recommendations, produced work, short films, and positive industry referrals can all help, but ultimately the script itself has to deliver.

One misconception I often see is that writers assume managers reject scripts because of formatting issues or minor mistakes. In reality, most passes come down to bigger-picture concerns: the concept doesn't feel distinctive enough, the execution doesn't quite live up to the premise, the voice isn't yet fully developed, the characters don't feel memorable, or the representative doesn't see a clear path to building a career around that writer.

As for whether you should seek a manager, agent, or producer first, I generally think managers are often the most realistic first target for emerging writers because they tend to be more focused on developing careers and discovering new talent. That said, there is no single correct path. Plenty of writers gain traction through producers, contests, referrals, fellowships, directors, or executives before they ever sign with a representative.

If I received 100 screenplay submissions, the thing that would most immediately make one stand out would be a combination of a compelling concept and a distinctive voice. A great logline can absolutely make me request a script. Usually I'm asking myself: Have I seen this before? Is there a clear audience? Does it feel cinematic? Does it make me curious enough that I want to spend two hours reading it?

For unrepped writers outside the United States, including writers from India, I think the path is largely the same as it is for anyone else: write exceptional material, build a portfolio of strong work, create professional presentation materials, enter reputable competitions and fellowships, build industry relationships, and continue generating new ideas. One thing many newer writers don't realize is that when someone likes a script, one of the next questions is often, "What else do you have?" People are frequently evaluating not just the screenplay in front of them, but your long-term potential as a writer and your ability to continually generate fresh, marketable, and creatively exciting ideas. Also note that managers and agents often tell me that what they're looking for in a new writer is an ability to write well across many genres -- rather than someone who's fully specialized in just one genre.

Ultimately, there is no single door into this business. Most careers are built through a combination of talent, persistence, relationships, timing, and a willingness to keep creating new work. The writers who tend to succeed are often the ones who continue writing long after most people would have quit.

Thank you for sharing your time and expertise with us, Katrina Wolfe! With so many distribution models available today from traditional theatrical and streamers to AVOD, FAST channels, self-distribution, and hybrid releases, where do you see the biggest opportunities that indie filmmakers and producers may be overlooking? Are there any emerging distribution strategies or platforms that you think deserve more attention from creatives trying to get their projects seen and build sustainable careers?

What are the most common reasons strong character-driven dramas fail to gain traction in development?"

Hi Katrina--thank you for taking the time to offer your valuable insights to the group. My screenplay is called Confessions of a Sony Adman. It’s is a true story that makes you smile while it pulls at your heart.

Think Blackberry meets Air, but with a high concept hook that’s deeply personal to me. My infant daughter who suffered from the same disease that took Stevie Wonder’s vision.

Logline: When an ambitious Sony adman battles to secure Stevie Wonder for the national campaign of the CD player, he’s torn between a career-defining triumph and a desperate need to be present for his daughter’s experimental surgery to save her eyesight.

As a former VP of Marketing Communications at Sony, I believe there will be genuine interest in a "Four Quadrant Winner" that delivers:

Nostalgia: That’s a love letter to the ‘80’s and the birth of the digital music age.

A world-class soundtrack and music icon who’s now a Tik-Tok sensation.

Tech: It’s the origin story of the device that saved the music industry.

Heart: A drama about work-life balance that will resonate with a global audience and every parent in the theater.

As an older writer with a singular project, I've had difficulty finding representation. Pls offer me your advice about taking this to a production company who could help package this (talent/director) to present to SPE? Also, do you think Sony is the only studio who

might have interest?

To learn more about me and this project go to: www.admanrevelations.com

Thank you so much for your insight. Best regards--Scott

Hello Katrina,

Thank you for taking the time to share your insight here—it’s genuinely appreciated.

I’ve been developing short thriller projects and have put real effort into building pitch decks and proof-of-concept materials, which have led to some very encouraging feedback in pitch and coverage sessions. However, the most consistent note I receive is to seek out my own funding to move projects forward.

From your perspective, what are some practical or realistic paths newer writers can take when they reach this stage? Are there specific strategies, relationships, or types of projects that tend to break through without prior industry backing?

Any guidance you can share would be incredibly helpful.

Thank you again,

Tom

@Jen Winters - Thanks for the great question!

Personally, I don't think most producers tend to have a blanket preference for one approach over the other. I've seen successful projects built around entirely fictional mythology, and I've seen others gain traction precisely because they were inspired by real events, real government programs, or historical mysteries.

What I do think can be very compelling is when a project takes something that actually existed, or was rumored to exist, and then asks, "What if?" That combination of reality and imagination can create a sense of authenticity that draws audiences in because they start wondering where the facts end and the fiction begins.

That said, I don't think the existence of a real-world conspiracy, black-ops program, or historical mystery is enough on its own. The execution still matters far more than the underlying premise. The questions I'd be asking are: Is the story compelling? Are the characters memorable? Does the mythology feel fresh? Is there a clear engine for an ongoing television series?

I also think audiences today are much more familiar with subjects like remote viewing, the Gateway Tapes, government experiments, UFO programs, and other fringe topics than they were twenty years ago. In some ways that creates opportunity, because there is greater awareness and interest. In other ways it means the bar is higher, because writers need to bring a genuinely fresh perspective to material that many audiences have already encountered in various forms.

So my advice would be not to focus too much on whether producers prefer "real" versus "fictional." Focus on whether you're using those historical elements in a way that feels unique, surprising, and dramatically compelling.

At the end of the day, what gets my attention isn't whether a story is based on a real conspiracy or an invented mythology. It's whether I find myself unable to stop thinking about it after I've finished reading.

@ Matthew Papadopoulos - Thank you for asking, and I appreciate your interest in sharing your work.

At the moment, I'm unfortunately not in a position to review or evaluate unsolicited material through the AMA or outside of my professional consulting services. Between my producing work and existing commitments, I simply don't have the bandwidth to give projects that I receive that way the time and attention they deserve on a complimentary basis.

If you're interested in receiving detailed feedback, notes, or a professional evaluation, the best starting point would be to book a consultation or order coverage from me via the Stage 32 script services. That allows me to properly read the material, provide thoughtful feedback, and potentially discuss next steps based on the project's specific strengths and goals.

I wish you the best of luck with the project, and congratulations on getting it written! That's an accomplishment in itself.

@ Muhammad Muhammad - thanks for the great question!

I think what makes a premiere meaningful is less about whether it's physical or virtual and more about whether it creates a sense of event.

Historically, festivals have been extremely valuable because they bring together audiences, press, distributors, sales agents, filmmakers, and industry professionals in one place. A successful festival premiere can generate reviews, word of mouth, industry buzz, and sometimes distribution opportunities.

That said, I personally think a festival launch has become somewhat less important than it once was, particularly for independent films. There was a time when a major festival premiere was often viewed as one of the primary gateways to distribution and audience discovery. Today, there are many more paths to reaching audiences, and filmmakers have more tools than ever to build awareness directly.

I absolutely think there is room for more innovative online premiere models. In fact, one of the things I think independent filmmakers need to become better at is building audiences directly rather than relying exclusively on traditional gatekeepers.

I also think the pandemic accelerated acceptance of virtual screenings, online premieres, and digital events. While many people still prefer the communal experience of a physical screening, audiences are far more accustomed to participating in online film-related events than they were five or six years ago.

From my perspective, the key question is: why should someone show up at a specific time instead of watching the film whenever it's convenient?

The more you can create exclusivity, community, interactivity, or a feeling that people are participating in something together, the more valuable the event becomes. That could be live Q&As, filmmaker discussions, cast participation, behind-the-scenes content, audience interaction, limited-time access, newsletters, or other elements that make people feel connected to the project and invested in its success.

Ultimately, what makes a premiere successful isn't necessarily the venue. It's whether it creates awareness, generates conversation, expands the audience, and helps move the project toward its larger goals.

As someone who has become increasingly interested in alternative distribution and audience-building strategies, I think we're still in the relatively early stages of exploring what online premiere events can become. Festivals remain important, but I don't believe they have a monopoly on creating meaningful audience experiences. My suspicion is that over time we'll see more hybrid approaches that combine the strengths of both physical and digital events.

At the end of the day, audiences are looking for connection and experience. Whether that happens in a theater, at a festival, or through a well-executed online event is, in my view, less important than whether the event gives people a reason to care, participate, and talk about the film afterward.

@Abdelkaber Dib - Thanks for your question!

One thing I would say is that executives generally don't buy franchises per se, they buy great first movies. It's wonderful if a project has franchise potential, but my first question is always: does the first installment work as a satisfying, compelling story on its own?

In fact, one of the most common mistakes I see is writers becoming so focused on the mythology, sequels, spin-offs, and future installments that they neglect making the first film truly exceptional.

Once that's in place, I think the elements that make a potential action franchise stand out are:

* A strong, distinctive protagonist

* A concept that feels familiar enough to be accessible but fresh enough to stand out

* A world that feels expandable

* Clear stakes and emotional investment

* Memorable antagonists

* A premise that naturally generates future stories rather than requiring increasingly convoluted explanations for why the hero is back in action again

I also think it's important to be able to articulate what makes your franchise different from the dozens of other action properties competing for attention. What's the unique hook? What's the thing people will remember when they leave the theater?

With DEAD SIGNAL specifically, the concept of a federal double-agent who rises from the dead to dismantle a global trafficking empire certainly suggests built-in franchise potential, but I'd still encourage you to focus primarily on making sure the first story delivers emotionally and dramatically.

Audiences may ultimately return for the mythology but they fall in love with characters. If you create a protagonist people genuinely care about and place them in a world that feels rich enough to support additional stories, the franchise opportunities tend to take care of themselves.

Thanks Katrina,

To clear my query but last question is still in my mind that as I live in India what I have to do that I get contact with Hollywood agents, managers and produces can you clear me that.

@Porchia Osby - Excellent question.

My answer would be: some combination of all three, but not necessarily in equal measure.

I'd first make sure you've gotten enough feedback to be confident the script is truly ready. A positive beta reader response is encouraging, but one of the biggest mistakes I see is writers beginning their outreach before they've fully pressure-tested the material.

Assuming the script is ready, I would probably prioritize getting the screenplay in front of as many qualified industry eyes as possible rather than putting all my eggs in any one basket.

Contests can be useful, particularly the more respected ones, because placements can provide validation and occasionally generate industry attention. Black List evaluations can also be helpful, especially if the script scores well enough to increase visibility on the platform.

You may also want to consider submitting the script to Slated. If a project scores above a certain threshold within their system, it can become eligible for their executive producer services, which are designed to help connect projects with producers, financiers, and other industry partners.

At the same time, I wouldn't sit back and wait for contests or platforms to do all the work. If you believe the script is ready, there's nothing wrong with simultaneously beginning thoughtful outreach to managers, producers, and companies that are genuinely a fit for contained psychological horror.

One thing I would keep in mind is that contained horror is one of the genres that can be attractive from a production standpoint because it often lends itself to lower budgets and therefore lower financial risk. That's not a substitute for quality, but it can be an advantage if the concept is strong.

If you're not planning to direct it yourself, I would also start researching comparable contained psychological horror films and series and building a target list of directors whose sensibilities seem aligned with the material. One of the first questions many producers, financiers, and other partners ask is, "Who is directing?" Having thoughtful ideas about potential directing partners can be helpful.

If I were building a strategy, it would probably look something like:

* Continue pursuing reputable contests and fellowships.

* Consider Black List evaluations if you're seeking additional validation and visibility.

* Consider platforms such as Slated.

* Begin targeted outreach rather than mass querying.

* Build a list of potential directors if you're not directing it yourself.

* Keep writing new material.

That last point is important. If a manager, producer, or executive loves your script, one of the first questions is often, "What else do you have?" People are frequently evaluating not just the screenplay in front of them, but your long-term potential and your ability to continue generating compelling ideas. Most representatives I speak with are looking for clients who can build sustainable careers, and that often means demonstrating the ability to work across multiple genres rather than having only a single project or a single lane.

Ultimately, the path that creates the most momentum is usually not one thing. It's when multiple things start happening at once. Strong feedback, contest placements, industry outreach, referrals, and additional writing samples all reinforce one another and help build a sense of momentum around both the script and the writer.

Im wondering as a starting writer how do you get past the "unsolicited = not readable to anyone legally in big studios cases get an agant" and "its readable but agants want you to have an agant" wall? No one will take my submissions. And agants who i thought were supposed to rep unsolicited work, tend to also use that at this point, rather makes newbies struggle type word.

@ BASHA Penukonda - thanks for the great question!

The first thing I'd say is that being an international writer is not a disadvantage in the way it once was. In fact, companies like Netflix and many other major studios, streamers, and distributors are actively seeking local-language content and locally originated stories. Some of the biggest global hits of the last decade have come from outside Hollywood, so there is much more openness today to discovering talent and material from around the world.

That said, the script is still the foundation. If the screenplay doesn't work, none of the other materials matter.

Beyond the script, what tends to get my attention is evidence that the writer or filmmaker can actually execute their vision. That's where demo work, short films, proof-of-concept pieces, directing samples, and other produced material can be extremely valuable. If someone tells me they can direct a psychological thriller, it's much more persuasive when I can actually watch something they've directed (if they're a director!).

A strong visual pitch deck is also helpful. It can communicate tone, style, audience, world, and creative vision in a way that helps people quickly understand what you're trying to achieve.

Packaging can help as well, particularly if you've attached meaningful collaborators. Any attractive and credible attachments are generally a positive. That said, most emerging writers don't have major actors, producers, or directors attached yet, and that's perfectly okay. I wouldn't consider a lack of attachments a dealbreaker at this stage.

A strong pitch and presentation also matter. Can you clearly articulate what the project is, why it stands out, who the audience is, and why you're the right person to tell the story?

One thing I would encourage international writers not to do is strip away everything unique about their background in an attempt to write something that feels generically "Hollywood." Some of the most interesting projects I've encountered are those that combine globally accessible storytelling with a perspective, setting, culture, or worldview that feels specific and authentic. Often, the very thing that makes a project feel local is what ultimately makes it travel internationally.

For me personally, if I had a polished script, a strong visual deck, and compelling demo work from a writer-director, that combination would probably move the needle more than almost anything else.

@ Nyla Brooks - Great questions.

Regarding originality, I don't think a truly original concept necessarily means inventing something that's never existed before. Most stories are built from familiar genres, themes, and archetypes. What feels fresh to me is a unique perspective, voice, setting, character, or angle.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that trends are often visible only in hindsight. By the time the industry identifies a trend and everyone starts chasing it, the market is often already moving on to the next thing. I also think Hollywood sometimes misinterprets why a particular film or series became successful, copying the surface-level elements without fully understanding what emotionally connected with audiences in the first place.

That's one reason I'm generally more interested in writers who are following their own creative instincts than trying to reverse-engineer what they think the market wants.

For me, a project feels fresh when it surprises me. When I find myself thinking, "I haven't quite seen this before," that's usually a very good sign.

As for your second question, if there is one storytelling skill I think every writer should master, regardless of format, it's the ability to create and sustain curiosity.

Whether you're writing a feature, TV series, documentary, podcast, educational content, or YouTube video, the audience is constantly asking themselves: "Why should I keep watching?"

The best storytellers understand how to create questions in the audience's mind and strategically answer them while introducing new ones. They understand pacing, escalation, revelation, and the careful release of information.

I also think character matters more than many people realize, even in nonfiction and educational content. Human beings are wired for stories about people. Information becomes far more memorable when it's attached to human experiences, goals, conflicts, discoveries, or transformations.

Ultimately, audience retention is about managing attention. The writers who do it best consistently create curiosity, emotional investment, surprise, or ideally all three at once.

@ Eric Charran - Excellent question.

First of all, you're right that my path was somewhat unusual, although it was also somewhat unique to the structure of Miramax, Dimension, and later The Weinstein Company at that time. I actually started in development as a reader and was on track to be promoted from assistant to junior development executive when I was unexpectedly offered the Head of Casting position at Dimension.

That said, there was a precedent for that kind of crossover within the company. The President of Production at Miramax had followed a similar path, as had several VPs and SVPs before me. Many of us ultimately expanded into production and development responsibilities, and I was fortunate enough to spend close to a decade there learning multiple sides of the business.

As for your question, I think it's actually a combination of concept, execution, and character.

A great high-concept premise can absolutely help a project survive the transition from script to package because it gives everyone an easy way to understand what the movie is and why an audience might care. But I've also seen plenty of great concepts fall apart because there wasn't enough underneath them.

Likewise, a distinctive voice can attract talent because actors, directors, and producers want to feel they're participating in something specific and special rather than generic.

If I had to choose one thing, though, I'd probably say character.

The projects I've seen survive years of development, packaging, financing challenges, casting changes, director changes, and market shifts are usually the ones built around characters people genuinely care about. A great role can attract talent. Great talent can attract financing. Financing can attract additional talent. It often becomes a virtuous cycle.

The other thing I've observed is that truly durable projects tend to have a strong underlying thematic core. They aren't just built around a plot. They are "about" something. When that exists, the project can often withstand a surprising amount of change while still remaining fundamentally itself.

@ Debbie Wiener - First of all, I think the premise sounds potentially very commercial. Audiences love getting a peek behind closed doors, especially when those doors belong to wealthy, powerful, eccentric, or otherwise fascinating people. The fact that these stories come from your actual experiences gives the concept a level of authenticity that's difficult to manufacture.

Assuming you're envisioning this as a scripted series, I would start with a pilot script. The script is ultimately the thing that will determine whether people respond to the project.

After that, I'd create a strong pitch deck that communicates the tone, world, characters, and series potential. A series bible can also be helpful, although opinions vary on how important they are today. Personally, I think they're somewhat less essential than they used to be, provided you have a strong pilot and a compelling deck.

One thing I would definitely emphasize in the deck is your unique access and expertise. Not many people have spent 25+ years designing for powerful political figures, wealthy clients, and larger-than-life personalities. That's part of what makes the project feel credible and distinctive. The industry is always looking for authentic worlds and voices, and your firsthand experience is one of the project's greatest assets.

I would also spend some time thinking about exactly how fictionalized the series is going to be and what the engine of the show is. What keeps the story generating episodes season after season?

As for who to share it with, I'd focus on managers, producers, and production companies that have experience with comedy, dramedy, female-driven content, or character-based television. The good news is that you're not starting with just an idea. You're starting with decades of real-world stories and a very specific point of view, which is often where the most interesting television comes from.

So if it were me, I'd focus on getting the pilot script into great shape first, then build a strong deck that highlights both the series and your unique access to this world, and use those materials to begin targeted outreach.

@ Christopher Murray - thanks for the great question.

The honest answer is that there isn't one universally correct sequence. Packaging is often opportunistic, and sometimes the order is dictated by who responds first, and then momentum builds from there (perhaps even more true in indie film than TV, but still applicable to your case).

That said, if this is a prestige limited series centered on a well-known cultural figure, I would generally lean toward attaching a strong showrunner or high-level writer-producer first, particularly if you're not serving in that role yourself. A respected showrunner can help refine the material, provide credibility, attract talent, and reassure buyers that the project can be successfully executed.

From there, attaching meaningful cast can become significantly easier.

That said, there are certainly situations where a piece of talent becomes the catalyst for everything else. If an actor with real value falls in love with the material and wants to champion it, that can attract showrunners, producers, financiers, and buyers. So I wouldn't ignore those opportunities if they arise.

Where I most often see people get the order wrong is becoming overly focused on packaging before they've identified the element that truly moves the needle for that particular project. Every project has a leverage point. Sometimes it's the IP. Sometimes it's the writer. Sometimes it's the showrunner. Sometimes it's a star. Sometimes it's a filmmaker.

In your case, the fact that you have life rights secured and estate alignment is already a meaningful asset because it reduces risk and answers questions that would otherwise concern buyers.

Ultimately, I'd focus less on following a rigid sequence and more on asking: "What is the single attachment most likely to make everyone else want to join?" For many prestige limited series projects, that is often a top-tier showrunner. But not always.

And one final thought: if you're already repped and actively packaging, I'd lean heavily on your representatives and producing partners here. Packaging is one of those areas where relationships and current marketplace dynamics often matter more than any general rulebook.

@ Emanuele Vergari - Thank you for the question.

The answer to your first question is absolutely yes. In today's industry, it is very common for writers, producers, executives, directors, and talent to collaborate remotely. In fact, I have worked with people all over the world without meeting them in person until much later, sometimes not at all. Geography matters far less than it used to, particularly for writers.

Regarding Stage 32, I know many writers have used the platform successfully to build relationships, receive feedback, enter contests, pitch projects, and connect with industry professionals. Whether it makes sense for you depends on your specific goals and how actively you engage with the community.

As for your concern about ideas being stolen, that's probably a better question for our moderator, @Ashley Renee Smith (sorry, the tagging function isn't working right now, Ashley, so hopefully you see this!) who can speak more specifically about Stage 32's policies and protections. More generally, though, I think newer writers often worry more about idea theft than they need to. In my experience, execution is what has value. Many people can have similar ideas, but very few can execute them well.

My advice would be to focus on writing the strongest material possible, building relationships, and getting your work in front of the right people. Those things are generally much more important to a writer's success than worrying about someone taking a concept.

Best of luck from one beautiful city to another. Florence is a wonderful place to be writing.

@ Francisco Castro - This is a complicated question, but I'll answer it as honestly as I can based on my experience.

I do think there has been meaningful progress since #MeToo and the industry's broader push toward diversity and inclusion. There are certainly more executives, producers, buyers, and companies actively looking for female-driven stories and stories centered on underrepresented voices than there were twenty years ago.

That said, I sometimes see a disconnect between what the industry says it wants and what the financing ecosystem is willing to support.

Many executives and companies are genuinely interested in female-led and POC-led projects, both because they recognize the cultural importance of those stories and because audiences have repeatedly demonstrated an appetite for them. But when projects move into the financing stage, particularly within more traditional independent film models, the conversation can become more challenging.

A lot of independent films still rely on foreign pre-sales, equity investors, lenders, and other financing sources that can be surprisingly conservative. In those models, cast attachments often play a significant role in determining how much money can be raised. Unfortunately, some international buyers are still operating from assumptions that feel years behind where audiences actually are.

The reality is that there still isn't always broad consensus among foreign buyers about which POC actors or actresses over 40 are considered "financeable" in the traditional pre-sale sense. Meanwhile, an older white male actor often remains one of the easiest attachments to monetize internationally because that is the model many buyers have been relying on for decades.

The good news is that this is changing, albeit unevenly. We've seen the success of projects led by actresses like Viola Davis, Angela Bassett, Michelle Yeoh, Regina King, and many others demonstrate that audiences absolutely will show up for compelling stories led by women of color. Streaming platforms and global audiences have also helped broaden the definition of what commercial success looks like.

So while I don't think the challenges you're describing are imaginary, I also don't think the answer is to become discouraged. Some financing models are evolving more slowly than the audience is. Historically, that's often how change happens in this industry. The audience moves first, and the money eventually catches up.

My hope, and increasingly my observation, is that we're seeing more examples every year that make it harder and harder for the old assumptions to survive.

Thank you, Katrina Wolfe, for taking the time to help creatives from all over! You have an incredible and inspiring background! I'd love to know what types of projects or story concepts you feel have become oversaturated or no longer feel original in today's market. I'm also curious about your thoughts on AI and production budgets. As AI continues to improve VFX and other areas of production, what percentage of overall budgets do you think it could realistically save? Do you see VFX becoming significantly cheaper, and if so, by how much? Finally, do you think the industry's definitions of low, mid, and high-budget productions will shift because of these efficiencies, and what do you see those budget ranges looking like in the future?

@ Steven Mitchell -

First of all, congratulations on securing the rights and getting the adaptation written. That's a significant accomplishment.

The challenge you're describing is a real one, and I don't think it's necessarily a reflection of the quality of the material.

The reality is that period dramas are often caught in an uncomfortable middle ground from a financing perspective. They tend to cost more than contemporary stories because of wardrobe, production design, locations, vehicles, hair and makeup, and other period-specific elements. At the same time, unless they're attached to very significant talent or based on extraordinarily well-known IP, they're not always perceived as having the same commercial upside as certain genres like horror, action, or broad thrillers.

I also think there can sometimes be a disconnect between literary prestige and perceived commercial value. A book can be highly acclaimed, award-winning, and beloved by readers without financiers necessarily viewing it as a property that will drive subscriptions, box office, or international sales.

That said, period dramas absolutely do get made. What I often see helping projects break through is some combination of:

Strong underlying IP

Meaningful cast attachments

A filmmaker with a clear vision

Awards recognition

A passionate champion willing to push the project forward

A budget that feels realistic relative to the audience opportunity

In your specific case, I actually think the supernatural element may be one of the more interesting aspects of the package. If positioned correctly, it potentially broadens the audience beyond traditional period-drama viewers and gives the project a clearer hook in the marketplace.

One thing I'd also encourage you to think about is whether the project's target audience is being communicated clearly enough. "Period romance" can mean many different things. The more specifically you can articulate who the audience is and why they're likely to respond, the easier it becomes for producers, financiers, distributors, and buyers to envision a path to market.

Finally, I would take some comfort in the fact that many literary adaptations -- and other types of projects -- spend years in development before finding the right champion or moment. While I can't speak to your project specifically, I've certainly seen strong material struggle not because it lacked quality, but because the right combination of timing, talent, financing, and advocacy hadn't yet come together. Every project has its own tempo and path to production; I have one that I'm working on that we've been developing for eight years that's finally getting a lot of traction, while I've had others come together relatively quickly (even though the material wasn't stronger, per se).

I am on my second draft of my first screenplay, do you have any advice for breaking into the industry and building a career?

@Sandra Isabel -

Thank you for the kind words!

1. What makes me think a character-driven romantic drama is worth building around?

For me, it almost always comes down to the characters and emotional authenticity.

Romantic dramas are a genre where audiences know the basic framework going in. They're showing up because they want to become invested in the people and the relationship.

What gets my attention is when the characters feel specific, layered, flawed, and deeply human. I want to understand why these two particular people need each other, why they can't simply walk away, and why this relationship could only happen between them.

I'm also looking for something that differentiates the project from the many other romantic dramas in the marketplace. That doesn't necessarily mean a high-concept hook, although that can certainly help. A recent example would be Voicemails for Isabelle, which has a strong central conceit that immediately distinguishes it from a more traditional romance. But sometimes the differentiator is a unique world, a fresh perspective, an unusual setting, or a theme that feels especially relevant.

Most importantly, I want to care. If I'm emotionally invested, I'm much more likely to start thinking about talent, directors, financing, and how to get the project made.

2. If the script is polished and you're beginning to seek producing partners, what would I focus on next?

Assuming the screenplay is truly ready and you've already received meaningful feedback, I would shift my attention toward packaging and outreach rather than continuing to revise.

My priorities would be:

* Creating a strong pitch deck

* Identifying producers who are a good fit for the material and attaching one to the project

Once you have an experienced producer on board, the next step will usually be attaching a director, assuming you're not directing it yourself. In my experience, it's difficult to get meaningful cast attached without a director (and, ideally, a casting director) because one of the first questions talent representatives ask is, "Who's directing?" And most actors are very filmmaker-driven in their decision-making. Likewise, securing a director is often easier when an experienced producer is leading the charge.

And one final thought: while you're pursuing this project, I'd encourage you to continue developing new ideas. If you successfully engage a producer, manager, executive, or director but this particular project isn't the right fit for them, one of the first questions is often, "What else do you have?"

For that reason, I always recommend having several additional concepts ready to discuss, ideally across different genres and budget levels, even if you haven't written them yet. People are often evaluating not just the screenplay in front of them, but your long-term potential, your creativity, and your ability to continue generating compelling material throughout a career.

Best of luck with the project!

Why a script writer fails even after writing a perfect script, approaching the producer with apt pitch deck to the story....what qualities should be improve to get his script selected

By the way it's my new animated short film which was created by me as a solo creator.I am the director, script writer,animator and editor of the film ....I made this Shortfilm with 105 CGI shots.... almost forgot one year as a solo creator.....I almost 3d modelled majority of the objects in 105 CGI shots with months of low poly building destructions and fire simulations baking and rendering...... even though story runs with faceless characters....I just want to show how a human being will face several consequences from birth to death ....I just want to explain the life in 2 mins35 sec..... also post credit scene starts at 2mins39 seconds in which last four shots involves human and warrior characters.....so please review it by watching upto 3 mins 17seconds....even if you say the flaws .I will improve for my next film...... The enchanted pitch short film in Telugu language but it was available with English subtitles

Here is the link : https://youtu.be/5KkMVJVhxjQ?si=KKTr19abSv6LtTyx

@ Clintly Wanga - Great questions. I'll answer them together because they're all closely related.

One of the biggest misconceptions I see among newer writers, particularly in thriller and sci-fi, is the belief that a great concept is enough.

A great concept gets attention. A great screenplay gets made.

I've read plenty of scripts where the logline was fantastic but the execution never lived up to the premise. Conversely, I've also read scripts with relatively simple concepts that became incredibly compelling because the writing, characters, and storytelling were so strong.

For me, what separates a strong concept from a project that feels compelling on the page is usually character. I want to know who this story is about, what they want, what's standing in their way, and why I should emotionally invest in their journey. The best sci-fi and thriller projects aren't really about the technology, mythology, conspiracy, or mystery. They're about people.

Similarly, when evaluating whether something feels adaptable for film or television, I'm looking for a strong visual and cinematic quality. Can I see the movie or series in my head? Does the concept naturally lend itself to compelling scenes, images, conflicts, and dramatic moments? Some ideas work beautifully as novels but don't naturally generate visual storytelling.

As for early-stage material, what tends to get my attention is some combination of:

* A strong, easily pitchable hook or premise

* Clear audience appeal

* Memorable characters

* A fresh perspective

* A sense that the writer understands where the story is going

The last point is especially important. Even in a pitch or treatment, I want to feel that the writer has thought beyond the initial idea and understands how to sustain it.

As for the most common mistakes I see in thrillers and sci-fi, I'd probably highlight four:

* The concept is more interesting than the characters.

* Excessive worldbuilding at the expense of story.

* Exposition replacing drama.

* Mistaking complexity for depth.

Writers sometimes spend so much time explaining the rules of the world, the science, the technology, or the mythology that they forget to make me care about the people experiencing it.

The projects that stay with me are usually the ones that strike the right balance. They have a compelling premise, but they also have characters I care about and a story that surprises me. At the end of the day, audiences don't fall in love with concepts. They fall in love with stories and characters.

That's true whether you're writing a contained psychological thriller, a massive science-fiction epic, or anything in between.

I am currently breaking into vertical drama and am doing adaptations for a wonderful company. I was wondering what kind of direction I should be looking at here. My goal is to work my way up as a screenwriter (while still creating short films among other things) but the career aspect is brand new to me. I didn't know I wanted to work in verticals until I landed this contract honestly. Is making something of myself in a singular company/format first a good point of leverage, or should I still be looking at more traditional formats and routes? I know some of this comes down to personal opinion and goals, etc. But I want a career focused, best possible outcome kind of observation.

Thank you Katrina Wolfe for your guidance. Its truly helpful. Cheering for you :))

@ Sebastian Tudores - thanks for the great question!

Honestly, the process is largely the same whether the book is published or unpublished. The core considerations are generally identical. The biggest difference is that with unpublished material, it can sometimes be more difficult to determine the actual marketplace value of the underlying IP because there isn't yet a sales history, readership, or public track record.

The first thing I'd focus on is making absolutely sure you understand exactly what rights you're acquiring and whether the person granting them actually controls those rights.

That sounds obvious, but chain of title issues can become very expensive later if they're not addressed up front. If there are agents, publishers, co-authors, illustrators, estates, or other parties involved, you want to be certain everyone who needs to sign off has done so.

I'd also make sure the agreement includes all of the rights you may ultimately need. Depending on your goals, that could include film, television, streaming, sequel, remake, stage, and other ancillary rights. That's true whether you're optioning a published or unpublished work.

The second thing I'd think carefully about is whether you're optioning the material because it's a great book or because it's a great movie or television project. Those are not always the same thing.

Some books are wonderful reads but don't naturally translate to the screen. Before spending money on an option, I'd ask myself: What is the movie or series here? Is there a clear dramatic engine? Are there compelling characters? Is it visual and cinematic? Can I easily explain why an audience would want to watch it?

And if the book is unpublished, I'd also take a hard look at what value the underlying IP is actually providing. Sometimes an unpublished manuscript is worth optioning because the story is exceptional. Other times it may make more sense to simply collaborate with the author and develop the material together rather than paying a premium for rights that don't yet come with an existing audience or market recognition. Along those lines, depending on the situation, you might consider a shopping agreement as an alternative to a traditional option. A shopping agreement can allow you to take the project out to producers, financiers, and buyers for a specified period without having to pay an upfront option fee. They aren't right for every situation, but they can be a useful tool, particularly when you're still testing the marketplace.

I'd also pay close attention to the option term itself. One of the biggest mistakes I see newer producers make is negotiating an option period that's too short. Development, packaging, financing, and setting projects up almost always takes way way longer than people expect. Make sure you have enough time to realistically develop and shop the project before the rights revert (I'd try for 24 months if at all possible, but the author may balk at that, but I'd recommend trying for as long as you can get given the realities of adaptation and development).

So if I had to pick a few key things, I'd say:

1. Make sure the rights situation is clean and crystal clear.

2. Make sure you're acquiring all of the rights you'll potentially need.

3. Make sure you're optioning something that works as a film or series, not just something that works as a book.

4. Negotiate enough time to actually develop and package the project.

I've been told my 50 scripts have a lot of potential. Is there a way to sell the concept?

Hi Katrina, thank you for doing this AMA.

I’m an emerging screenwriter with several completed feature scripts, including a true-story female-driven drama and contained suspense/thriller projects. Some have been submitted through Stage 32 opportunities and contests. My goal is to find the right producer, manager, or development executive, not to produce the films myself.

From a producer’s point of view, what makes a finished script from an unknown writer stand out after submission? Besides a strong script and logline, what supporting materials should I have ready, such as synopsis, pitch deck, proof of concept, or coverage? Also, when a writer has multiple finished scripts, is it better to focus on one strongest project or present a small slate?

Thank you for your guidance.

While westerns are popular on streaming services, is there any chance of getting a feature western made?

@ Joshua Young - excellent question.

For me, one of the biggest indicators that a writer has control of the tone is that the material feels intentional rather than shocking for the sake of being shocking.

In edgy comedy, dark comedy, and elevated genre, it's relatively easy to be provocative. What's much harder is creating something that feels provocative while still feeling cohesive, emotionally grounded, and true to the world of the story.

If I had to pick the biggest indicators, I'd probably say character, tonal consistency, comps, and how much creative imagination and energy is present on the page.

Character is important because even the wildest or darkest material tends to work best when it's anchored by people whose motivations and emotional journeys make sense. Audiences will follow you to some very strange places if they're invested in the characters' arcs.

Tonal consistency across the whole script is critical. Does the writer seem to understand exactly what movie or series they're making? One of the fastest ways for a script to lose me is when it feels like it's constantly changing tonal rules or isn't sure what it wants to be.

This is actually one of the areas where a pitch deck can be incredibly helpful. Strong visual references and well-chosen comps can communicate tone very quickly. If a writer can clearly articulate the tonal DNA of the project through comps, imagery, and the writing itself, it gives me confidence that they understand exactly what experience they're trying to create for the audience.

I'm also looking for whether the writer is imaginative enough to carry their premise to its logical extreme. The best edgy material doesn't just contain provocative elements. It finds increasingly clever, surprising, and organic ways to explore them. The more provocative moments don't feel random or disconnected; they emerge naturally from the characters, themes, and emotional core of the story. The concept, tone, character, theme, and emotion all feel like they're informing one another.

The first ten pages matter too, because they usually tell me whether the writer has command of the material. But ultimately, what I'm looking for is consistency. Does the script feel like it's in the hands of someone who knows exactly what experience they're trying to create for the audience?

The projects that stand out to me are rarely the ones pushing the furthest. They're the ones where every choice feels deliberate, the tone feels confident, and the writer makes me feel that I'm in capable hands from beginning to end.

@ Austen Lott - Thanks for your question!

The frustrating answer is that it depends.

If Script One has strong execution but the underlying concept doesn't excite me, there's a limit to how much development can accomplish. It's generally easier to improve dialogue, structure, pacing, and even character work than it is to fundamentally transform a concept into something people are excited to buy, finance, market, and watch.

On the other hand, if Script Two has an incredible premise and a world I want to spend time in, but the execution is weak across the board, that's not necessarily an easy fix either.

If I absolutely had to choose between the two, I'd probably lean toward Script Two, assuming the writing is competent enough that the issues feel fixable. The reason is that when I find myself still thinking about a concept, world, or premise days after reading it, that's usually a sign there's something special there.

One thing I've learned over the years is that it's much easier to teach craft than it is to teach imagination.

A great premise, a distinctive voice, an unforgettable world, or a genuinely fresh point of view are relatively rare. Strong execution is obviously essential, but if the underlying idea doesn't excite anyone, there's often a ceiling on how far the project can go.

That said, on a practical level, I'm also looking at my existing slate and the realities of the marketplace. If one script overlaps heavily with projects I'm already developing, that can influence the decision. Genre matters too. If one project is a horror, thriller, or sci-fi and the other is a straight drama, all things being equal I'd probably be more inclined to pursue the genre project simply because those genres are generally easier to finance, sell, and get made in today's independent marketplace.

From a producer's perspective, what often catches my eye first is the thing I can pitch in a sentence. What's the hook? What's the concept? Why does this stand out from the hundreds of other projects competing for attention?

But what carries a project through development, packaging, financing, and ultimately production is usually the execution. The concept gets people in the door. The writing convinces them to stay.

So if you're asking which one has a better chance of getting my attention initially, I'd probably say Script Two. If you're asking which one has a better chance of ultimately succeeding, the answer is whichever one can eventually combine the strengths of both.

@ Imola Orban -

Thank you so much for your great questions!

First of all, I love your ambition. The film industry needs talented storytellers of every age, and there have absolutely been successful filmmakers who started very young.

To your first point, I think you're largely correct: ultimately, the movie matters more than the age of the filmmaker.

Being a very young director can certainly generate interest and media attention, especially if the work is exceptional. But that attention only lasts if the film itself delivers. Audiences, critics, producers, and executives may initially be curious about a director's age, but what ultimately matters is whether the storytelling, filmmaking, and execution are strong.

A great recent example is Kane Parsons, the creator of "Backrooms." He began making those films as a teenager and generated enormous attention because the work itself was so imaginative and well-executed. People may have initially been surprised by his age, but what really got everyone's attention was the quality of the filmmaking.

In other words, age can open a door, but talent, perseverance, and hard work are what keep it open.

I would also encourage you not to put too much pressure on yourself to accomplish everything within a specific timeline. Some filmmakers break through very young, while others don't direct their first feature until much later. What matters most is continuing to learn, make things, write, direct, and build your skills.

As for your second question: absolutely!

Many directors play music on set, although usually not while cameras are rolling or sound is being recorded. During prep, rehearsals, lunch, wrap, or in common areas, music can be a great way to build morale and create a positive atmosphere.

Just be prepared for the fact that not everyone will share your taste in music. One of the hidden jobs of a director is occasionally being the set DJ!

And one final thought: if you're 15 and already thinking seriously about directing, producing, and screenwriting, my advice would be simple: start making things now. Short films, videos, scenes with friends, scripts, anything. The best film school in the world is often simply making projects, learning from them, and then making the next one.

Best of luck from across the ocean, and I hope to see one of your films someday.

Hi Katrina, Residuals and royalties have dried up for screenwriters primarily due to the shift from the traditional syndication-based TV model to streaming. Would you suggest that screenwriters ask for more upfront money for writers' fees in the option agreement in the negotiation stage?

@ Rutger Oosterhoff - thanks for your question! White space is important because it generally makes a screenplay feel faster, more cinematic, and more inviting to read. Most readers, executives, producers, managers, and agents are reading a lot of material, so readability matters, and no one likes seeing excessive amounts of prose on the page when they crack open a script.

That said, I don't think great writing can be reduced to a formatting trick. A script with beautiful white space but weak characters or storytelling won't get very far.

In fact, I recently worked on a script that was very lean, very visual, and quite well written, but arguably had too much white space. There wasn't always enough scene direction to properly orient me as a reader. I occasionally found myself unclear about what was happening physically, what the rough staging looked like, or how certain moments were unfolding. Ironically, that actually slowed me down.

So I think it's a balance.

@ Ashley Renee Smith - excellent question!

This is a topic I'm particularly interested in because I actually self-distributed my most recent feature, The Big Bend.

One of the biggest shifts I've seen over the last several years is that the veil is gradually being lifted on the distribution process. There are far more case studies, tools, and resources available to filmmakers than there used to be, and there are increasingly innovative ways to reach audiences directly.

A good example is Attend, a platform founded by the former National Association of Theatre Owners that helps connect films directly with theaters. It's one of several examples of how the traditional gatekeepers are no longer the only path to an audience.

Because of that, my advice to independent filmmakers is to plan from day one as though you may ultimately self-release the film. Build marketing and P&A costs into your financing strategy from the outset. If a distributor comes along later with a fantastic offer, that's great. But if they don't, you'll still have a viable path to getting your film seen.

I'd also strongly encourage filmmakers to study successful release case studies. There are excellent examples published regularly in Filmmaker Magazine, on the Sundance website, and in the trades. Some of the most valuable lessons you'll learn won't come from production stories. They'll come from understanding how filmmakers actually found and activated their audiences.

One thing that surprises many people is that YouTube Movies is often one of the strongest digital revenue generators for independent films. The distribution landscape is changing constantly, so it's important to understand where audiences are actually consuming content today.

Most importantly, start building your audience long before the film is finished. Use social media. Share behind-the-scenes content. Bring people into the journey. Collect email addresses. Build a newsletter. Develop a direct relationship with the audience while you're making the movie, not after it's done.

The filmmakers who do this well are effectively creating a community around the project before release day ever arrives.

For anyone interested in this space, I'd highly recommend following Ted Hope's Substack, which frequently explores emerging distribution and audience-building strategies. I'd also recommend subscribing to the Film Specific newsletter. And of course, Stage 32 offers a tremendous amount of education, networking, and resources around these topics as well.

The bottom line is that while distribution remains challenging, filmmakers today have more tools, more transparency, and more direct access to audiences than at any point in my career.

@ Kiara Brown - Great question!

I think one of the biggest challenges for character-driven dramas is that they're often competing in a marketplace that increasingly favors concepts that can be easily pitched and marketed.

That doesn't mean dramas can't succeed. They absolutely can. But they generally have less margin for error because they can't rely on a high-concept hook, a genre engine, or a big piece of spectacle to generate interest.

The most common reasons I see strong character-driven dramas struggle are:

* The characters are well-written, but the story lacks urgency or momentum.

* The stakes feel too internal or abstract.

* The project doesn't have a clear audience or market positioning.

* The writer mistakes realism for drama.

* The script is beautifully written, but there's no obvious answer to "Why this story, right now?"

* The scope and budget level are out of alignment with the current marketplace for dramas.

I also think some writers focus so heavily on creating nuanced characters that they neglect plot, conflict, or narrative drive. Character and story aren't opposing forces. The strongest dramas tend to excel at both.

From a producing standpoint, another challenge is simply practicality. If I have two equally strong scripts and one is a drama while the other is a thriller, horror film, or sci-fi project, the genre piece is often easier to finance, sell, and distribute. That's just the reality of today's independent marketplace.

Character-driven dramas are also often more execution-dependent than genre films. With a horror film, sometimes the concept itself can do a lot of heavy lifting. With a drama, the filmmaking has to be exceptional. As a result, having a director with a strong vision and a track record of eliciting great performances can become especially important. It's also one reason cast attachments matter so much in this space. Great actors are often drawn to rich dramatic material, and recognizable cast can help overcome some of the financing and marketplace challenges dramas face.

That said, the dramas that break through are often the ones that have something extra beyond strong writing. Maybe it's an unforgettable voice. Maybe it's a world we haven't seen before. Maybe it's a timely theme. Maybe it's a role that actors will fight to play.

When I think about the character-driven dramas that have stayed with me over the years, they almost always combine emotional depth with a clear sense of purpose. They're not just observing people. They're saying something about the human experience that feels meaningful, specific, and worth spending two hours exploring.

Ultimately, I don't think audiences avoid dramas. I think they avoid dramas that don't give them a compelling reason to lean in. The challenge for writers is creating characters we care about and a story we feel we have to follow.

Hi! My name is Snehil, I am a screen writer based out on India. I have a quick question, Are American executives, in general open to stories set outside of the US?

@ Scott Westover - thank you for your question!

First of all, congratulations on getting the project written and out into the world. One thing that immediately stands out to me is that while the Sony/CD player backdrop is certainly intriguing, what I'm actually responding to most in your description is the emotional story involving your daughter. That's the element that feels universal and potentially gives the project its heart.

To answer your question, no, I don't think Sony would necessarily be the only potential buyer. While the company and the period setting are part of the story's appeal, I'd be cautious about viewing it primarily as a "Sony movie." The larger opportunity may be positioning it as a human drama set against a fascinating moment in music, technology, and corporate history.

As for representation, I wouldn't get too discouraged by the fact that you're an older writer with a singular project. While representatives often prefer clients who have multiple projects and long-term careers ahead of them, there are certainly exceptions when someone brings a compelling piece of material and a unique perspective.

I would also point out that a project doesn't live or die based on whether the writer is represented. Representation can certainly help open doors, but plenty of projects find their way to producers, directors, talent, and financiers through other routes. Ultimately, the material itself is still the most important thing. If people respond strongly enough to the project, there are many different paths it can take into the marketplace.

If your goal is to attract producers who can help package the project, my advice would be to focus first on making sure the screenplay, pitch deck, and positioning materials are as strong as possible. Then identify producers whose work overlaps with prestige true stories, music-driven films, biographical dramas, or commercially accessible adult dramas.

One thing I'd encourage you to think about carefully is what the primary selling point of the film is. Is it the Sony story? The Stevie Wonder connection? The birth of the CD player? Or is it ultimately the story of a father trying to balance a career-defining opportunity with a family crisis? My instinct is that the answer to that question may have a significant impact on how the project is positioned.

Without having read the script, it's difficult for me to offer more specific guidance. If you'd like detailed feedback on the screenplay itself, the positioning, the deck, or a strategy for approaching producers and packaging the project, one potential next step would be to book a consultation or script service through my Stage 32 profile so we can dive into the material in a much more substantive way than is possible in an AMA format.

Wishing you the best of luck with the project.

Do you remember the last script from an unknown writer that genuinely surprised you? And what made it impossible to ignore?

Thank you for your spot-on response, Katrina Wolfe. You're absolutely right about the foreign presale/foreign buyers. I've become disillusioned as the producers try to find financing for my 40-something Asian female led revenge thriller, but now I'm a little more hopeful now with your view of "The audience moves first, and the money eventually catches up." Appreciate your words and your time.

Hi Katrina,

Thank you for taking the time to do this AMA.

As both a writer and someone developing projects across multiple formats (features, television, and now vertical series), I’ve been thinking a lot about what makes one project rise above another when executives and producers are reviewing material.

From your perspective, what is the difference between a script that is technically well-written and a project that genuinely excites you enough to want to champion it internally? Is it concept, character, voice, emotional impact, marketability, or something else entirely?

Thank you for sharing your experience.

@ Thomas Ortiz - thanks very much for your question.

This is a very common challenge, and unfortunately there's no single answer because "find financing" can mean very different things depending on the budget level, genre, attachments, and whether you're talking about a short film or a feature.

One thing I'd say upfront is that when people tell newer filmmakers to find their own financing, they're often really saying: "Reduce the perceived risk." The more proof you can provide that a project can succeed, the easier it becomes to bring other people on board.

To your question about what kinds of projects tend to break through without prior industry backing, I'd say that very original, high-concept genre projects, particularly horror, thriller, and sci-fi, that can be executed on a lean budget, have a significant advantage. Arguably more now than ever.

One practical approach I've seen several first-time writer-directors take successfully is to build a story around a very contained concept that can realistically be made at a true no-budget or microbudget level. I'm talking roughly $30K-$60K, financed through savings, friends and family, favors, deferred payments, and sheer determination.

One first-time writer/director friend of mine made an elevated sci-fi film that required very few visual effects and shot it in Los Angeles on a tiny budget within that range. The film premiered in competition at SXSW last year to great acclaim, screened in competition at Sitges (a very prestigious competition for genre films), and was subsequently picked up by an exciting new distributor.

Another friend made a dark comedy that was largely set in a single house with six actors. They shot with four cameras simultaneously to reduce production time and costs. The film is currently in post and looking very promising.

With the tools available today, the barriers to entry are lower than they've ever been. As we've seen with Kane Parsons and The Backrooms, even starting with YouTube content can ultimately lead to significant opportunities.

One piece of advice I've always loved comes from Mark Duplass:

"Go make your movie. Stop waiting for permission, and stop waiting for experts."

There's a lot of wisdom in that. Sometimes the fastest way through the industry's red tape is simply to pick up a camera and start creating.

That said, if the script you're talking about is your true passion project and it isn't achievable at a no-budget or microbudget level, I wouldn't abandon it. Keep getting it out there. Keep talking to producers, managers, reps, financiers, and collaborators. You're going to hear very different opinions from different people.

Sometimes a pass isn't really a pass on the project. It's a pass from someone who doesn't have access to the financing needed to make it happen, or who knows the project may be difficult to finance within their particular network. Another producer with a different set of relationships, investors, or expertise may view the exact same project very differently.

In parallel, I'd explore every financing avenue available to you, including soft money programs, tax incentives, grants, fiscal sponsorship opportunities, film funds, strategic producing partners, and private investors. The financing landscape is often much broader than newer filmmakers initially realize.

I also think it's worth considering whether there is a smaller, more producible project you could make first while continuing to push the larger passion project. Many successful filmmakers have used a smaller feature or proof-of-concept project to build credibility and create momentum without taking their eyes off the bigger goal.

The fact that you're already receiving positive feedback on your materials is encouraging. That suggests the challenge may not be the concept itself, but rather finding the right path to bridge the gap between development and execution.

Katrina Wolfe, Greetings, it is a pleasure to meet with you to present a substantial and valuable work, intended to contribute to and showcase my international areas of study and research.

https://reedsy.com/jose-luis-carreno-troncoso

https://joseluiscarreniotroncoso.wordpress.com/

https://univ-paris1.academia.edu/JOSELUISCARRE%C3%91OTRONCOSO

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jose-luis-carre%C3

@ Sumit Gupta - Absolutely.

The good news is that living in India is far less of a barrier today than it would have been twenty years ago. Most meetings now happen over Zoom, and many Hollywood producers, managers, and agents regularly work with writers all over the world.

Production is also much more global than it used to be. In fact, companies like Netflix and many other major buyers are actively seeking local-language and international content. Some of the biggest global hits of the last decade have originated outside the United States, so being based in India is not necessarily a disadvantage.

My recommendation would be to focus first on making sure you have an exceptional writing sample, a strong logline, a polished synopsis, and ideally a pitch deck. Once you have those materials ready, start researching managers, agents, producers, and production companies whose tastes align with your project.

At the same time, keep writing. Most representatives aren't just evaluating a single script. They're evaluating whether they can build a long-term relationship with a writer. They generally want to see that you have a body of work, multiple ideas in development, and the ability to execute across different genres. One of the first questions you'll often hear if someone likes your script is, "What else do you have?"

IMDbPro can be very useful for identifying representatives and production companies. You can often find contact information through company websites as well, or by researching the email formats used by specific companies.

I'd also encourage you not to limit yourself to Hollywood representatives. Consider looking at managers, agents, and production companies in the UK and Canada as well. There are many excellent companies in those markets, and in some cases they may be more receptive to emerging international writers while still maintaining strong relationships with U.S. buyers and producers.

When you reach out, keep your email short, professional, and personalized. One practical tip: if your screenplay has received notable recognition, put that directly in the subject line. For example:

"Finalist - Nicholl Fellowship - Thriller Feature"

or

"Stage 32 Winner - Sci-Fi Feature"

Anything that provides immediate third-party validation can help your email stand out.

I'd also encourage you to continue building relationships through Stage 32, screenplay competitions, fellowships, virtual networking events, and pitch sessions.

Most importantly, don't assume being outside Los Angeles means you can't break in. I've seen talented writers from all over the world build careers in Hollywood. Focus on creating material people can't stop talking about, keep building relationships, and keep putting your work into the marketplace.

Hello Katrina,

I have a question regarding large-scale franchise development.

Let's say a writer has already developed a substantial interconnected universe with multiple completed screenplays, long-term story planning, and potential for expansion into films, television, games, and other media.

From a producer's perspective, what is the most effective way to introduce such a property to the industry?

Would you focus on selling a single standout screenplay first, creating a proof-of-concept project, securing representation, or packaging the broader universe from the beginning?

In other words, how do major studios and producers prefer to discover and evaluate new franchise-scale IP created by an unknown writer?

Thank you for your time.

@ Bailey Johnston - thanks for your question!

This is one of the most common frustrations for emerging writers, and you're not imagining it. There can definitely be a catch-22 feeling: studios generally won't read unsolicited material, and many managers and agents are overwhelmed with submissions.

One thing I'd clarify is that agents and managers aren't typically looking to sign a script. They're looking to sign a writer they believe they can build a career around. That's one reason I always encourage writers to keep writing and building a body of work rather than putting all their hopes into a single project.

It's also worth noting that some of the rejection you're encountering may have less to do with your writing and more to do with the realities of the business right now. Many reps are being extremely selective and are reluctant to take on what the industry often calls a "development client" — an emerging writer who still needs help getting their first project off the ground. They know how difficult the marketplace is and may not feel they have the leverage or bandwidth to get that material made.

The good news is that there are many paths into the industry that don't involve cold-querying studios. Competitions, fellowships, Stage 32 pitch sessions, networking events, referrals, producers, coverage services, festivals, and screenplay platforms can all create opportunities for your work to get in front of the right people.

And if you're querying reps directly, make sure you're giving yourself every advantage. Research people carefully, target those who actually work in your genre, keep your outreach concise, and highlight any notable accolades right in the subject line.

One other thing I'd mention is that, as crazy as it sounds, selling a script to a major studio as a brand-new writer isn't always the huge win people imagine it to be. It can help you get representation and credibility, but often the project then becomes largely out of your control, and many studio projects never actually get made. For that reason, I often encourage emerging writers to consider the independent route as well. A smaller, more producible project can sometimes do more for your career than a giant studio-scale project stuck in development limbo.

Most importantly, keep writing.

I have a screenwriter friend who recently landed a strong manager after winning a major screenwriting competition. But what convinced the manager to sign him wasn't just that one script or the competition win. It was the fact that when they asked, "What else do you have?", he had multiple strong writing samples across several genres ready to go.

That's probably the number one thing I hear from reps. They're looking for writers with lots of ideas, who are self-motivated, who are writing consistently, and who can execute across different genres. They're not just signing a screenplay. They're signing a writer and betting on that writer's future output.

It's not an easy process, but people do break in every year. The ones who succeed are usually the ones who keep improving, keep creating, keep building relationships, and keep putting themselves out there long after most people would have quit.

For a feature screenplay based on a true story that spans several decades, how do producers and development executives view the use of flashbacks? What makes a flashback structure feel organic and emotionally engaging rather than complicated or distracting?

When you're evaluating a script, what tells you the writer is using flashbacks because the story truly requires them versus using them as a storytelling crutch?

Hi Katrina--I'm blown away by the depth of your insight and generous length of response to so many questions. As a result I think you may have not seen my question below. Could you pls respond as I would greatly value your insight.

Hi Katrina--thank you for taking the time to offer your valuable insights to the group. My screenplay is called Confessions of a Sony Adman. It’s is a true story that makes you smile while it pulls at your heart.

Think Blackberry meets Air, but with a high concept hook that’s deeply personal to me. My infant daughter who suffered from the same disease that took Stevie Wonder’s vision.

Logline: When an ambitious Sony adman battles to secure Stevie Wonder for the national campaign of the CD player, he’s torn between a career-defining triumph and a desperate need to be present for his daughter’s experimental surgery to save her eyesight.

As a former VP of Marketing Communications at Sony, I believe there will be genuine interest in a "Four Quadrant Winner" that delivers:

Nostalgia: That’s a love letter to the ‘80’s and the birth of the digital music age.

A world-class soundtrack and music icon who’s now a Tik-Tok sensation.

Tech: It’s the origin story of the device that saved the music industry.

Heart: A drama about work-life balance that will resonate with a global audience and every parent in the theater.

As an older writer with a singular project, I've had difficulty finding representation. Pls offer me your advice about taking this to a production company who could help package this (talent/director) to present to SPE? Also, do you think Sony is the only studio who

might have interest?

To learn more about me and this project go to: www.admanrevelations.com

Thank you so much for your insight. Best regards--Scott

Hi Katrina,

I have a feature screenplay that was recently selected as a Finalist in the LA International Screenplay Awards.

The project is a character-driven international action-drama thriller and I have completed the screenplay, logline, synopsis, and producer package.

At this stage, would you recommend focusing primarily on managers, producers, production companies, or sales/distribution relationships first?

In today's market, what path have you seen work most effectively for emerging writers who already have a completed package but no industry representation?

Thank you for your time and insight.

OK then: Why are the movies the Hollywood produced recently dramatically so shallow and pointless... or do you think they are great?? Do you have or share a sense of responsibility for the audience or just for the shareholders?

Hi Katrina,

I am developing a feature drama set in Barcelona, Catalonia, titled "Según la ley". The story follows an immigrant struggling with contradictions within the Catalan legal and social systems while trying to preserve his dignity and rebuild his life.

My question is: from a producer's perspective, does a story deeply rooted in a specific place and culture, such as Catalonia, make a project more attractive in today's international market, or should writers broaden the setting to appeal to wider audiences?

Thank you for sharing your experience.

Scott Westover, Katrina did respond to your question already. Just jumping in to make sure that you know, so that you don't miss it. =)

Hi Katrina! Thank you for taking the time for all of us! I have about 10 finished scripts (8 features & 2 shorts) and about 5 in different stages of development. They are all from different genres, although horror is my strongpoint. I've been meeting with many executives here on Stage 32, both managers and producers. People seem to love my work, and they get excited when we talk about it, but no one has actually given me a definitive "YES." What do you recommend my next steps should be? Thank you!

Hello again Katrina Wolfe

Thank you so much for your response to my questions. I really wasn't expecting such a thoughtful, detailed reply. I genuinely appreciate it and the work you’ve put into answering all our questions.

The note about financing challenges and the gap between literary prestige and commercial value was helpful to hear, even though it’s not exactly what you want to be told. It does make the slower pace feel a lot less like a verdict on the material. I am relentless.

I do have a rising ingenue interested in the property, but breaking through the wall that is her agent is a challenge for an emerging screenwriter without representation or a champion.

Anyway, thank you. It’s really generous of you to share your time, experience and hopeful messaging. I'm walking away from it with a clearer head and a lot more optimism than I had before, and am considering booking you to read my screenplay.

Sláinte,

Steven

For a writer with a completed feature script in the elevated‑horror space, what’s the smartest next step to get it in front of the right people; managers, producers, or development execs, without burning opportunities too early?

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say what a fantastic performance in answering everyone's questions today, Katrina!

Hi Katrina! I'm a first-time screenwriter with one project — SYNERGY, a 10-episode limited series. I have a completed script, visual bible, and сoncept teaser. The story came from something I lived through personally — and that's what gave it its emotional core.

Season One is a complete, self-contained narrative arc. It also opens a trilogy — three seasons, one larger story.

My question: for a writer whose work comes entirely from one deeply personal project, with no other samples — what is the most realistic path to industry attention? And does a fully conceived trilogy compensate for the absence of other writing work?

I'm currently pitching through Stage 32 and submitting to competitions. Am I on the right track — or is there a more effective approach for a project like this?

Katrina Wolfe congrats on your career! I''m interested in your podcast The Story of the Pink Panthers - did you ever think to adapt that to a limited series?

Hi Katrina Wolfe, first off, really appreciate you taking the time to do this Q&A. I am an aspiring tv writer that has just begun to explore what it means to pursue this industry so every bit of advice I can get is gold. My questions are: 1) What are the biggest craft mistakes that you see that separates beginners from working screenwriters/screenwriters that have their works pulled out of the crowd? and 2) Is querying managers or agents still a semi-viable avenue in this industry to try in break in or is it just sort of like screaming at a brick wall?

I've heard a lot about attachments being a big part of the pitch. How much weight would a location attachment pull?

Thank you very much, Katrina for your earlier answer — the “single leverage point” framing is exactly what I needed. One follow-up: when that leverage point is the showrunner, how do you realistically get a top-tier, streamer-connected showrunner to actually read and engage with a prestige limited series they didn't originate? What's the genuine path in — and what tends to make one say yes? Thanks in advance, Christopher

@ Dwayne Williams 2 - Thank you for the kind words!

On your first question, I actually don't think there are many concepts that are inherently "played out." Almost any premise can feel fresh if it's approached from a genuinely original perspective. What I do see a lot of are writers chasing trends that have already peaked. By the time you're writing what you think the market wants, the market has often moved on. I'd much rather read something that feels authentic to the writer's own creative instincts than something that feels reverse-engineered to fit the moment.

As for AI, I do think it's going to have a meaningful impact on production budgets, particularly in VFX, pre-vis, storyboarding, concept art, localization, and certain areas of post-production. VFX is already becoming significantly less expensive thanks to AI-assisted workflows, and I think that trend will continue. I wouldn't be comfortable putting a specific percentage on overall budget savings because every project is different, but I do think we'll continue to see filmmakers achieve production value that would have been impossible at their budget level just a few years ago.

That said, I don't think AI is going to replace the need for talented artists, filmmakers, and craftspeople. I think the biggest change will be that smaller teams will be able to accomplish much more than they could before.

I also do think our definitions of "low," "mid," and "high" budget films will continue to evolve. If filmmakers can consistently deliver the production value of yesterday's $10 million film for $3-5 million, then the market will naturally recalibrate. In some ways, we're already seeing that happen.

As with any transformative technology, I think it's important to acknowledge that we're still in the very early stages. AI may ultimately evolve in ways that none of us can fully predict, for better and for worse. I suspect the industry will look very different five or ten years from now than it does today.

@ Jamie Graywolf - Congratulations! Finishing a first draft is something many aspiring writers never accomplish, so you're already ahead of the curve.

My biggest piece of advice would be: don't think of this as your first screenplay. Think of it as the first screenplay in what will hopefully become a large body of work.

Continue polishing this script until it's the best it can be, get thoughtful feedback from people you trust, and then start writing the next one. Most managers and agents aren't looking for a writer with one great script. They're looking for someone who has lots of ideas, is self-motivated, writes consistently, and can execute across multiple genres. One of the first questions you'll hear if someone likes your script is, "What else do you have?" So keep coming up with ideas to have in your back pocket.

I'd also encourage you to start building relationships now through communities like Stage 32, screenplay competitions, fellowships, networking events, and pitch sessions. The film industry is very relationship-driven, and those connections tend to compound over time.

Finally, write what genuinely excites you rather than trying to chase trends. By the time you've written what you think the market wants, the market has usually moved on. The scripts that stand out are the ones that feel authentic, original, and impossible for anyone else to have written.

Good luck with Draft Two. In my experience, that's often where the real writing begins.

@ Asish Kiran - First of all, congratulations on completing your short film! Creating 105 CGI shots as a solo creator over the course of a year is an enormous undertaking, and just finishing a project like that is an achievement.

To answer your broader question, I actually don't believe there's such a thing as a "perfect" script. Even great scripts get passed on all the time.

A pass doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with the writing. It may be because:

* The project doesn't fit that producer's slate.

* The budget is difficult to finance.

* They already have something similar in development.

* They don't know how to market or package it.

* They simply have different creative tastes.

I've passed on projects that I thought were excellent simply because I knew I wasn't the right producer for them.

That's why I always encourage writers not to interpret every "no" as a judgment on the quality of their work. Sometimes it's simply about fit.

As for your short film, unfortunately I can't properly review unsolicited material in an AMA format. If you'd like detailed creative feedback, Stage 32 offers script and project consultation services where we can spend the time necessary to give your work the thoughtful attention it deserves.

In the meantime, keep making films, keep creating. The fact that you've already completed an ambitious animated short entirely on your own demonstrates the kind of perseverance that's essential for a long career in this industry.

@ Nikayla Carrillo - Congratulations! First of all, I wouldn't underestimate what you've already accomplished. Breaking into any part of the industry is difficult, and the fact that you're being paid to write is a great place to be.

Personally, I wouldn't view verticals and traditional film/TV as mutually exclusive. If you're enjoying the work and continuing to gain experience, I'd absolutely keep doing it while simultaneously developing your own original features and pilots.

We're also seeing a huge influx of traditional Hollywood moving into the vertical space. Companies like MicroCo and Holy Water have entered the market, Netflix is experimenting in the space, and the list goes on. In some ways, the two worlds seem to be converging, although no one really knows how long the current vertical boom will last or what it will ultimately evolve into.

The reality is that it's where many of the writing jobs are right now. On the production and development side, I'm also seeing more and more job postings asking for applicants with vertical experience, so I think it's becoming increasingly valuable professionally.

That said, I also think it's important to recognize that this is a rapidly evolving business. A colleague of mine recently spoke with the head of one of the largest vertical platforms, who confided that they believe the current vertical microdrama craze may largely run its course within the next five years, and they're already quietly thinking about what the platform might evolve into next. Even they don't know exactly what that will look like.

One thing I've learned over the years is that careers are rarely linear. Opportunities often come from unexpected places, and the writers who do best tend to stay open to those opportunities while continuing to build their own body of work.

The storytelling muscles you're developing in verticals are valuable. You're learning structure, pacing, cliffhangers, character, collaboration, and working to professional deadlines. Those skills absolutely transfer to other formats.

My only caution would be not to become so busy writing other people's material that you stop developing your own. Long-term, your original voice and original IP are likely to become your most valuable assets.

So my advice would be: embrace the vertical work, become known as someone who's reliable and enjoyable to work with, but continue writing features and television pilots in the genres you're ultimately hoping to build a career in. That way you're building both your résumé and your portfolio at the same time.

It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both.

@ Randy White - Hi there! I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but if you're asking whether it's possible to sell a concept without a finished screenplay, it's certainly possible, but it's relatively rare unless you're already an established writer, producer, or filmmaker with a track record.

Generally speaking, producers and studios are buying execution, not just ideas. Everyone has ideas. What they're investing in is a writer's ability to turn a great concept into a great screenplay.

The good news is that if you've written 50 scripts, you've already demonstrated something that's incredibly valuable: you're prolific. That's actually one of the biggest things managers, agents, and producers look for. They're investing in writers who consistently generate compelling material and have a lot of good ideas across a variety of genres.

If I misunderstood your question, feel free to clarify what you meant by "sell the concept," and I'll do my best to answer more specifically.

@ Jaspreet Kaur - thanks for your questions!

First of all, congratulations on building a body of work. That's one of the biggest milestones, and it's something managers, producers, and executives all pay attention to.

To answer your last question first, I would lead with your single strongest project. You want to give people one clear reason to engage with you rather than asking them to choose from several scripts. However, once you've gotten their attention, it's incredibly important to have other strong material ready. As I've mentioned in several of my other responses today, one of the first questions you'll often hear is, "What else do you have?" That's why I always encourage writers to keep writing and develop multiple projects across different genres.

As for supporting materials, I'd recommend having a polished logline, one-page synopsis, pitch deck, and brief bio ready to go. A proof of concept can certainly help in some cases, particularly if you're planning to direct, but I don't think it's essential for every project. Strong contest placements, fellowships, or reputable coverage can also provide useful third-party validation.

Ultimately, though, the supporting materials are just that...supporting. They're there to reinforce the screenplay, not compensate for it.

From a producer's perspective, what makes an unknown writer stand out is usually one of two things: either the concept is so compelling that I immediately want to know more, or the writing voice is so distinctive that I feel like I'm reading something only that writer could have written. Ideally, you have both.

Finally, remember that a "pass" can in many cases have little to do with the quality of the script. It may simply not fit that producer's slate, budget range, relationships, or the current market. That's why persistence and targeted outreach are so important. The goal isn't to convince everyone. It's to find the people who are the right fit for your material.

@ Paul DiLella - Absolutely. I actually think westerns remain one of the stronger genre plays in the independent marketplace, particularly if they have a fresh angle and can be produced at a sensible budget.

Old Henry is a great fairly recent example of an independent western that found both critical acclaim and a strong audience. More recently, The Thicket demonstrates there's still appetite for the genre. It's also telling that some of today's most acclaimed filmmakers are gravitating toward westerns. Park Chan-wook is attached to direct The Brigands of Rattlecreek, Steven Spielberg has said his next project will be the first western of his career, and Blood on the Promontory has also generated considerable industry interest lately. To me, those are all signs that the genre remains very much alive.

Westerns also tend to travel well internationally, which is something financiers and sales agents always pay attention to. It's a genre with enduring global appeal.

That said, like any genre, the project still needs something that differentiates it. A western that simply retreads familiar territory will have a harder time than one with a fresh hook, memorable characters, or an interesting thematic angle.

From a producing standpoint, budget is also critical. A western that's designed intelligently, with contained locations and a realistic scope is going to be much easier to finance than an epic requiring hundreds of extras and massive set pieces.

So yes, I absolutely think there's a market for feature westerns. As with any project today, the key is finding a fresh take and making sure the scope aligns with today's independent marketplace.

@ Tom Stohlgren - That's a great question, and it's certainly one of the biggest issues facing screenwriters today.

The good news is that the WGA made meaningful progress in its most recent agreement by negotiating improved streaming residuals, including success-based residuals tied to viewership for certain high-performing streaming titles. So while the economics have undoubtedly changed from the broadcast and syndication era, the Guild has taken important steps to adapt to the streaming landscape.

As for negotiating a higher upfront fee, my answer is: absolutely, if you have the leverage to do so.

Ultimately, though, every deal is a negotiation, and your leverage depends on factors like your track record, the demand for the project, competing buyers, whether you're represented, and the buyer's budget.

I also think writers should look beyond just the upfront purchase price. Things like meaningful rewrite fees, production bonuses, sequel and remake provisions, credit protections, consulting fees during production, and backend participation can all become important parts of the overall deal.

For emerging writers especially, I would caution against optimizing for one deal term in isolation. Sometimes accepting a slightly lower fee in exchange for a producer or financier who has a genuine ability to get the movie made can ultimately be the better career move.

It's certainly true that the business model has changed dramatically over the last decade, and writers are right to be thinking strategically about how they're compensated. My advice is to understand your leverage, negotiate thoughtfully, and, when possible, have an experienced entertainment attorney or representative helping you navigate those conversations.

Thank you so much, Katrina. This is very helpful and gives me a clear direction to lead with one strongest project while keeping my other materials ready. I appreciate your guidance.

@ Snehil Mishra - thanks for your question!

My answer is: yes, absolutely American executives are open to stories set outside the U.S. In fact, I think they're more open to them now than at any point in my career.

Companies like Netflix, Warner Bros. International, and many other major players are investing more and more heavily in local-language content. As Netflix Chief Content Officer Bela Bajaria has said, "We don't make global shows. We make very local shows that happen to resonate globally." She has also emphasized that Netflix wants "authentic local stories, not international stories. If they are good, they become international on their own."

More broadly, I'm also seeing U.S. producers actively looking overseas and pursuing international co-productions. Frankly, the domestic film industry is facing significant headwinds right now, while many international markets continue to offer growth opportunities, financing incentives, and strong local audiences.

So if you're writing stories set in India or elsewhere, I wouldn't view that as a disadvantage at all. In many cases, it's actually a strength. I'd encourage you to lean into the authenticity of your setting and perspective rather than trying to make your work feel "more American."

Great storytelling travels, and today's marketplace is far more global than it was even ten years ago.

Hi Katrina,

I am an independent screenwriter from India working on feature film projects.

My question is: What is the biggest mistake new screenwriters make when approaching producers and managers, and what makes a producer seriously consider reading a script from an unknown writer with no industry connections?

Thank you for your time and guidance.

HI @Katrina Wolfe and thank you for taking questions from all of us today! You've really given out a lot of knowledge here and I've learned a ton just reading your responses to other questions.

So, I'll keep my few simple. 1. What kind of story keeps you butt-in-chair, leaning forward in anticipation? 2. What about those writers that manage to catch your attention? EDIT: you've answered these first two pretty well already so for others, so thanks for that. 3. And lastly, what kind of projects make you most excited for the future of film and/or television?

Very much appreciate your time today!

@katrina wolfe thank you. Ill keep writing. Still hard tho... given the whole...its hard to even find people to submit to. Also my geonra choices arem't popular right now. Thanks tho.

@ George Griggs - Yes, I absolutely remember the last script from an unknown writer that genuinely surprised me.

The writer had primarily been writing children's books and was also involved in another creative field, music, so I had absolutely no context for what I was about to read. It completely hooked me and felt genuinely fresh. The only other time I've had that exact feeling was years earlier when I first read the script that ultimately became my film Nightingale starring David Oyelowo.

Interestingly, both scripts were set almost entirely inside a single house, albeit in completely different genres. Nightingale is a psychological character study, while the more recent script was a high-concept psychological thriller.

What made them both impossible to ignore was that they fully immersed me in the minds of deeply fascinating, disturbed protagonists. Both writers committed completely to their characters' points of view, creating worlds that were disorienting, addictive, and impossible to stop reading. In both cases, I found myself constantly asking, "What is really happening here?" and eagerly turning the pages to find out.

The more recent script, in particular, committed unapologetically to a very high-concept premise. The protagonist himself was confused and trying to understand his reality, so the audience experienced that same uncertainty alongside him until a terrific reveal in the final scene. What impressed me most wasn't just the concept, but the execution. Every element, the premise, the tone, the character, the theme, and the storytelling all worked together seamlessly. It carried its idea to its logical extreme without ever losing control.

It also reminded me of another reading experience that has stayed with me for decades. Early in my career, when I was still an assistant at Dimension Films, I read the original spec script for Memento before Christopher Nolan had become a household name. I remember walking into our Monday morning weekend-read meeting passionately advocating for it because I'd simply never read anything like it. It took an incredibly high-concept premise that could easily have become confusing or unintentionally silly, and instead transformed it into a brilliantly constructed, emotionally compelling thriller. It committed fully to its concept and explored every implication in a smart, surprising, and deeply satisfying way.

If there's one common thread among all three scripts, it's this: they weren't just built around great concepts. They had writers who were willing to commit completely to those concepts, trust the audience, and create worlds that felt unlike anything I'd experienced before. That's what made them unforgettable.

@ Charmane Wedderburn - Great question!

For me, a technically well-written script demonstrates craft. An exciting script makes me forget I'm reading one.

The projects I end up championing almost always have a combination of things working together. They have a compelling concept, a distinctive voice, emotionally engaging characters, and they execute on their premise in a way that feels fresh and surprising. But if I had to boil it down to one thing, I'd say they make me feel something. Whether that's suspense, wonder, discomfort, laughter, heartbreak, or simply the excitement of experiencing an idea I've never seen before, I'm looking for a script that creates an emotional response.

I also love writers who fully commit to their premise. Some of the most memorable scripts I've ever read took a bold concept and explored every implication of it. Form, theme, character, tone, and story all worked together seamlessly. There was a confidence to the writing that made me feel like I was in good hands.

From a practical standpoint as a producer, I'm also asking myself: Can I actually get this made? Who's the audience? Is it appropriately budgeted? Does it fit with my slate? Those considerations matter, but they come after the script has made me care.

Ultimately, the scripts I remember years later aren't necessarily the most technically perfect ones. They're the ones that surprised me, immersed me in a world I'd never experienced before, and left me thinking about them long after I'd finished reading. Those are the projects I'm excited to champion because I can't stop talking about them.

@ Jose Troncoso -

Thank you for your kind message, and congratulations on what appears to be a significant body of work and research.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to review or evaluate unsolicited materials through an AMA. If you're looking for detailed feedback on your work or would like to discuss its potential for film or television adaptation, I'd encourage you to book a consultation or script service with me through Stage 32. That way I'll be able to spend the time your work deserves and provide thoughtful, in-depth feedback.

I wish you all the best with your projects, and thank you for joining the AMA!

@ Grzegorz Bialas - excellent question.

My advice would be to lead with a single exceptional screenplay, not the entire universe.

It's wonderful to know that there's a rich mythology and long-term vision behind a project, but as a producer, my first question is much simpler: "Is the first movie great?" If the answer is yes, then I'm excited to hear about the larger world. If the answer is no, the franchise potential becomes irrelevant.

I'd also be careful not to overwhelm people. Unknown writers sometimes make the mistake of pitching ten films, three television series, spin-offs, games, and merchandise before they've convinced anyone to invest in the first story. It's much more effective to hint at the larger world than to lead with it.

I would absolutely create a strong, visually compelling pitch deck. It's a great way to communicate the tone, world, characters, and the broader franchise potential without overwhelming the reader. Just make sure the emphasis remains on why the first installment works as a satisfying, standalone story.

A proof of concept can also be valuable, particularly if you're directing, but it's not essential in every case. Strong representation is always helpful, but I don't think it's a prerequisite.

Ultimately, major studios and producers tend to discover franchise IP the same way they discover everything else: through exceptional execution. They fall in love with one story first. If that story succeeds, then everyone starts asking, "What else is in this world?"

So my advice would be: sell me on the movie before you sell me on the franchise. If the first installment is compelling enough, I'll want to hear about everything that comes next.

BTW, Katrina Wolfe, I worked at TWC as an Assistant to the SVP of Business Affairs from 2007-2008.

@ Kathy Dempsey - Terrific question.

I don't have any issue with flashbacks in and of themselves. They're simply a storytelling tool. The question is whether they're the best tool for telling that story.

For a true story spanning multiple decades, flashbacks often make perfect sense because you're dealing with events that are essential to understanding the present-day narrative. The key is that each flashback should reveal something meaningful, either about the plot, the character, or our understanding of what's happening in the present. If you can remove a flashback and the story still works, I'd question whether it belongs there.

The biggest issues I see with flashbacks are structural rather than conceptual. They're often not motivated by anything happening in the present, so they feel arbitrary rather than organic. They can also become too frequent, causing the story to constantly lose momentum, or so brief that they don't accomplish enough to justify interrupting the narrative.

Ironically, the opposite problem is even more common: flashbacks that go on for far too long. At a certain point, the audience forgets what was happening in the present timeline because they've effectively been dropped into another movie. And one of my biggest pet peeves is flashbacks within flashbacks. I see this surprisingly often, and unless it's handled exceptionally well, it usually creates unnecessary confusion and distances the audience emotionally.

Another issue I see all the time is flashbacks that don't actually build on one another. Instead, they keep returning to the same moment or reinforcing the same piece of information in slightly different ways. Ideally, each flashback should advance our understanding. In fact, if you were to take all of the flashbacks and place them together into one continuous chronological sequence, they should tell a coherent story with their own sense of progression. Each flashback should reveal something new rather than simply reminding us of what we already know.

When I'm reading, I ask myself: Is this the most compelling way to tell the story? Or would it actually be stronger if it were told chronologically?

One exercise I often recommend is writing a chronological outline of the story, even if you ultimately don't tell it that way. If the story works chronologically, then your decision to use flashbacks should be driven by a very specific creative reason, not simply because it feels more cinematic or sophisticated.

The best flashback structures don't feel like interruptions. They feel inevitable. They arise naturally from what's happening in the present, they deepen our understanding of the characters, they raise the emotional stakes, and then they return us to the present before overstaying their welcome.

Hello Ms. Wolfe, my question is: from your experience, what do producers, financiers or studios look for in a screenwriter which is not in the script that helps get the script sold/made? Thank you kindly.

@ Hamid Cyrus - Congratulations on being a finalist; that's a great accomplishment and a useful piece of third-party validation!

Personally, I wouldn't limit yourself to just one avenue. I'd be pursuing managers, producers, and production companies simultaneously. They each serve different functions, and you never know which door is going to open first. I generally wouldn't focus on sales agents or distributors at this stage, as they're typically coming into the conversation once there's a producer, package, or film to evaluate.

One practical tip: make sure you leverage your competition success. If you're querying managers or producers, put "Finalist – LA International Screenplay Awards" right in the subject line. It immediately gives your email credibility and helps it stand out.

I would also continue writing. As I've mentioned in a few of my other responses today, one of the first questions you'll often hear if someone likes your script is, "What else do you have?" Most managers aren't looking to sign a screenplay—they're looking to sign a writer. They want to know you have a body of work, lots of ideas, and the ability to execute across multiple genres.

Finally, I'd encourage you to be strategic about your outreach. Research producers and companies that actually make films similar to yours, rather than sending the same email to hundreds of people. It's much better to send fifty thoughtful, targeted emails than five hundred generic ones.

Finding the right champion is often more important than finding the biggest name. It only takes one producer, manager, or executive who truly connects with your material to change the trajectory of a project.

You've already answered my questions with Heidi Patullo, "The industry wants to know if you can do it again". Great question and answer.

@ Scott Westover -

Thank you so much for the kind words! And my apologies for any confusion -- as Ashley Renee Smith mentioned earlier, I did respond to your original question, which you can find below by searching your screen (Command + F on a Mac, Ctrl + F on PC) and search your name, as I'm putting everyone's full name in my response. Unfortunately the tagging function on the site hasn't been working for me, so I haven't been able to tag anyone in my replies. Hopefully you're also seeing this message!

I really appreciate you taking the time to participate in the AMA, and I wish you the very best with Confessions of a Sony Adman. It's a very distinctive premise, and I hope my earlier response was helpful. Thanks again!