Honest Advice for new Screenwriters in 2024

(This is an updated & expanded version of Honest Advice for new Screenwriters in 2023, in light of more recent developments and my perspective as an agented writer).

This piece is aimed at anyone in the UK who wants to write scripts: maybe you're just starting or coming off a course (BA or MA), or are the intrepid outsider gung-ho-ing it with a copy of Save the Cat. You want to write movies and TV, maybe even get a shot at working on a big franchise like Doctor Who or Eastenders. 

I must first salute your first step into a creative field. It's exciting and when it comes together on the page, a sublime feeling!

You will also no doubt be aware of everything else happening - the country is dealing with a cost of living crisis, and our entertainment industry has not been spared. The fallout of the (fully justified) SAG-AFTRA and WGA strikes in America, and an animation strike around the corner; rising costs leading to many in UK film and TV being out of work, with many more having left altogether, and most recently, the cancellation of a slew of shows, including longtime training ground Doctors.

It's undeniably a grim picture right now: nerves are frayed, slots are being cut and with money low, the dream seems even more out of grasp. For the new arrival to this field, you may be doubting your decision to try script writing. Perhaps you've made some headway and now, things have dried up and you fear a career change is not far. Did you waste all that effort?

I've always endeavored for this blog to not just be optimistic, for the sake of new writers navigating an often frustrating business, but practical: to give you resources to find your way. So if you are a nervous student, or a curious enthusiast, here's my recommendations for what you can do. I'll split these into two categories: SCREENWRITER and LIFE.

SCREENWRITER

1.  If I can advise spending a little on something, invest in a copy of The UK Scriptwriter's Survival Guide: (for clarity, this is not a paid promotion.) Veteran film and TV scribes Tim Clague and Danny Stack (Eastenders, Doctors, Thunderbirds Are Go) give a practical, no B.S. guide on what you can do to help yourself get a foothold in the industry. I honestly believe this should be compulsory reading for all new screenwriters, as it will open your eyes to many possibilities (some we'll quickly touch on below too), as well as give you useful tips and tricks to navigate the business and avoid dead-ends.
2. No matter what genre or style you like to write in, keep your scripts budget-friendly. Be conservative and smart with your sets, number of characters, production value and big set piece moments. Be mindful of locations too - do you need to be in London, for example? In TV terms, what's your precinct (where characters will spend most of their time) and how much can you get out of it? This is also true if you write movies: the Hollywood machinery doesn't exist here and your best bet is the world of microbudget feature films. 
3. Use this time and downturn (Inside the industry, the word is 'Survive till '25') to build a portfolio of scripts: 3 is the usual advice, but I'd say with the way things are, 5-6, in different mediums/genres is a better investment of what time and energy you have. And I don't mean 5-6 scripts you've just written - I mean 5-6 scripts you have polished and are proud of, which may be your ninth or tenth overall! And prioritize returnables over limited/miniseries.
4. Sharpen the hell out of your logline and pitches. Never before has a succinct and easy way to sell your script mattered more - can you sell your show in one page, and even in just 30 words? That hook can make all the difference to if a producer or development person wants to add you to their huge reading list.
   
5. Screenwriting and its storytelling methods don't just apply to movies and TV - it's writing, after all. With what you learn, you can diversify into other fields that do put up jobs in a more familiar way (sites like LinkedIn, Indeed etc) than the detective work associated with the big two. Web content (like scripts for Youtube videos), video games, podcasts, copywriting (writing adverts, written website content, promotional materials, pamphlets), all of these will utilize the skills you learn. Indeed, there are other roles where your skills can be used, as I discuss here.

 LIFE

1. Keeping or getting a day job is not a sign of failure or that you need to give up your writing dream - it's literally what's keeping you fed and alive. Balance and finding time to write can be done.  If you take an extra few months to write a script because you've got other priorities, so what? It's not a race - just write something good and damned be if it takes six months or two years to write. No one has ever, in my experience, cared about length of development: just the end result.
2. Connected to the first - if you have to retrain in a new field, it doesn't mean you can never write again. You'll have to adjust the timescale, again, but it's not impossible and not worth beating yourself up over.
   
3. Take breaks. For the love of God, take breaks, do other things and just refresh yourself when you can: a trip to the park, play with your kids or pets, grab a big Mac. It will clear out mental cobwebs, lower stress and might help you find that missing piece in your story.
   
4. In the middle of economic hardship, the standard advice of 'make your own thing' can be, at least, a little insensitive and presumptive. This also doesn't account for the freefall in independent theatre, so scratch nights are a dicier prospect (though if you have a way in, take it). If you were to ask me 'I don't have a lot of spare time or money. Should I do a short film, a video webseries, or a comedy/drama scripted podcast as a showcase/first credit?', I'd say pick the podcast - far lower costs and logistics than anything visual, everyone has a decent-quality mic on their phone or laptop nowadays, and it puts your unique voice as a writer front and center.
5. Even when things pick up again in the next year or two, everything in film and TV will still be rather SLOW. Everything takes time, reading backlogs have never been bigger, and everything is about your initiative and productiveness. This is not a career for those who are lazy or just expect, for whatever reason, things to come to them.It also means don't be disheartened if a script takes months to get read. I take about how to check in here
   

The simple takeaway here is that building a career in the arts is hard. It was already really hard, but the economic plight and years of questionable decision making has compounded that challenge. But, and this is the fuller takeaway, it's not without little rays of hopeful sunshine, twee as that might read. So long as you keep practicing, keep writing and keep on experimenting, you still have a chance, and this industry needs you.

(P.S. If you can, follow The TV Mindset and share #Leftinthedark, to highlight the failure to support freelancers in this industry.)

4 Tips on how to write a TV Pilot, from a working writer

Writing TV can be an exciting, as well as daunting, endeavor. You're not just writing one good script, you're writing the opening act to an entire saga, a story that could run 3-100 episodes, depending on the project. Maybe it's a five series fantasy epic, or a four part family drama about a forgotten murder: whatever it is, it's a big job that can, if you find the right people, pay off big.

As someone who's been at this for several years, with stuff broadcast and in development, I've learnt my share along the way. I've written for kids and adults, worked in ITV Studios and gotten recommendations from some rather hefty players in the business. I don't claim to know all: I'm still learning too, but I hope you can avoid some of my own blunders with this quartet of advice.

1. Build your series treatment/bible first, not your pilot

A television pilot is more akin to the first chapter of a book than a whole novel: it's the introduction, the setup that will give us a taste and template of what's to come. How many times have you ever heard of an author planning and writing just the first chapter of their book? 

A series bible/treatment is basically everything your show has to offer: the cast of characters, the theme and central conflict, the setting, the storylines you will tell, rough ideas for upcoming episodes. People may be wowed with twisty-turny plot, but they won't be back for more if the characters don't click, so spend the time in this document to flesh them out, give them flaws, arcs, secrets. Another important thing to remember: TV casts tend to be big, which means you also need to think about how relationships between the characters and what conflicts they have (that's a keyword, so remember) over the course of the series.

2. Please have subplots, and have them be discernible

Do not fall into the trap of having your pilot be nothing but A Plot, A Plot, A Plot. You need subplots to not only fill the runtime, but also give your cast more to do and see the characters be explored. In a pilot, these subplots will often also help set up longer running storylines and conflicts: secret romances, betrayals, family stories, alternate perspectives, the plans of the antagonist.

If you've done your bible, there's less risk of this not being present. However, this is where outlining will help too: being able to have clearly defined A, B, C and even D plots (sometimes you may even get E and F, depending on the type of show and the length) will enable you to treat them like individual stories, not random scenes that break up the main action for no reason.

3. Everyman/ordinary protagonists should not be dull

The protagonist, hero or dick, is the person we will be following throughout the whole show. Even if they are not a Sherlock-level genius, or a Marvel superhero, they should still be complex and interesting. Even if they still live with their parents and work a crappy till job in a deadend town, they will still be three-dimensional people with hopes, dreams and vices. If they don't care, why should we bother watching them?

Often, an ordinary protagonist is a reflection of the writer, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it's important to step outside your own head: just because you know something and take it as a given with your views and personality, that does not mean it will make sense on the page or be clear to the reader. Even if they are based on someone real, do the work and make them come alive on the page.

4. Be economical with your sets

While budget is less important than a good story and characters in a spec script, remember it's still television. if we are constantly changing locations every single scene, not only will the cost go up, but it means the show has no anchor. People, even the rich and diabolical, still have places to live and hang. Homes, hangouts like clubs or bars; businesses and places of work like shops, offices and schools, even vehicles they often are in like cars, trains and buses.

These places effectively function as precincts, as returnable standing sets that will help get the most out of the budget, and as a place where multiple characters can be expected to interact, thus creating conflict and drama. This is true, even in animation where there isn't a hard limit on sets because no construction costs: characters on those shows still have places they frequent. Ducktales has McDuck Manor and the Money Bin; Octonauts has their ship and underwater base; Simpsons has the house, Moe's Tavern, the Plant, Springfield Elementary, the church, the Retirement Castle, the Aztec Cinema, the list goes on.

I hope these will be of use to you. If you still feel like you need more help, I've also done a list of books I'd recommend about TV writing. Go check it out!

What next for UK Film & TV? - A Response to Ewan Morrison and John McVay

Crystal balls are not much help right now, as everything is in flux and could go any which way. June looks like a make-or-break month: thus far, VE Day and other bank holidays haven't lead to an explosion in cases, but will that hold true as kids go back to school and shops reopen?

On the Film & TV side, it's also very touch and go: Soaps are developing strategies to shoot and keep elderly actors off as much as possible, with Emmerdale resuming operations last month, Coronation Street next week and Eastenders aiming to do so by June's end. What's more, Warner Bros., Disney and Netflix are working with the Tory government to restart in the next month or so, with safety measures, on major productions like The Little Mermaid and Matt Reeves' The Batman. Ideas being put forward include skeleton crews for filming; actors doing self-makeup; floor markings; minimizing stunts; prioritizing outdoor shooting and favouring local crews.

But that's now - what about new productions? What kind of shows could be made? Well, the BBC ran a piece, interviewing several high-profile industry folk on that question. Among them were screenwriter Ewan Morrison (The Outlaw King) and PACT boss John McVay, who voiced thoughts and concerns. The main ones being settings for shows, as well as scale and logistics.

Both raise valid and important points: the bigger the project, the more headaches it will be to keep everyone safe. The reduction in spectacle, too, could lead to some more creative filmmaking and storytelling that isn't reliant on eye-candy to woo audiences - indeed, such a cost cut from budgets could lead to some leveling of opportunities for lower-tier writers to staff on more prestigious shows, now that you don't have to fret so much over money. Morrison's remark about seeing more shows in both smaller yet more fantastical locales like space or underwater could lead to a resurgence in domestic genre programming, which is great for nerds like me who want more homegrown sci-fi and fantasy (and even work on them...).

From my end, I think the idea that we could be entering an era of more conservatively budgeted shows that could, as a by-product, take more risks (in slight difference to Morrison's view) is a huge-plus for new talent, an issue that both Film and TV have, admittedly, not done a great job of engaging with. Apprenticeships and prizes are all well and good, but newcomers need solid, professional credits to get anywhere. That said, this is still a short-term solution: like it or not, you can only reskin a confined show so many times before people will want to see dragons and armies again. A healthy industry, regardless of circumstance, is one that produces a variety of content - too much in either high or low is bad for creatively, careers and culture. Expensive shows limit who can work on them, but cheap ones will only be able to take on so many people. In addition, depending on the show, certain people may get left out altogether: make-up artists, special effects artists, set designers, costumers, stunt people etc.

Like it or not, McVay must know that eventually, big shows will have to start up again. You're dealing with months, if not years, of contracts, deals and other paperwork behind these big-timers, and far too many types of professionals who need the work. You obviously don't want sets to become outbreak points, but this, like so much else in the Covid pandemic, is the result of various societal problems crashing into each other. I think this present anxiety is based on an idea of Covid remaining exactly as it is right now, which no version of the science, optimistic or pessimistic, supports. As discussed before, our understanding of Covid has rapidly changed, and relatively fast. Even if we don't get a vaccine by year's end, we will likely have measures, and probably treatments, in place to file off the worst parts (ala HIV).

As for Morrison's 'resurgence of big-budget animation' prediction, I'm going to have to err on no from a drama POV (though Morrison doesn't specify what age-group he's indicating: does he mean a four-quadrant British Pixar, or a return to the more experimental days of Watership Down and The Plague Dogs?) Anyone involved in animation fandom has seen this crop up many times over the years - the odds of the BBC or ITV making what amounts to British Anime (animation meant for a prime-time audience that isn't strictly comedy, to pick up the current need for drama shows) is pretty much a non-starter. Amazon and Netflix might (and have) in small doses, but by the time you could get a dramatic show animated, the live-action industry will likely have found workarounds on how to shoot, thus rendering it moot in most cases.

Plus, working from home doesn't mean the process'll go any faster in creating regular cartoons and adult animated series - material still has to be vetted, altered and given notes, in addition to all the pre-planning like designing, storyboards and animatics.

In so far as Morrison's worries over Covid being an excuse for producers to double down on adaptations - on the one hand, that's a real risk. In times of trouble, people stick with what's familiar. People who already bemoan our TV being dominated with novel adaptations have every right to feel frustrated, and that IP value is only going to increase as companies need to carefully marshal resources and pick the best project to get a return on.

At the same time, however, I do think we must be careful not to adopt a dismissive attitude (especially not after Morrison advocated a progressive stance with genre content earlier in the piece) - in times where money will be tight and people, including and especially children's, access to the arts is going to be impacted, Film and TV could pick up the slack and introduce classic works to new generations. How many of our favourite books, sometimes the very things that inspired into creative careers, came out of us watching the movie or TV version first? And, frankly, shouldn't creating quality productions matter more than where they came from?

Something which the article doesn't touch on much, but anyone active on Twitter and the like has seen, is the indie debate. There, the question is could this be a new golden age for independent films and content that can be made with few resources and people? Some seem very confident in it, and I see the rationale, but there's a flip side: these projects may be more open and able to social distance, but the lack of money also means less PPE and safety measures can be put in place. how many actors and filmmakers are going to gamble on a project which pays little-to-nothing, just for exposure? (if anything, the golden age could be for audio productions.)

It will be tough - you're effectively rewriting decades worth of habits and practices in a matter of weeks. For newcomers, it's a scary time and it seems like it could all vanish at the drop of a hat. For veterans and even for those of us who have climbed up the first couple of rungs, like myself, it's all on the razor's edge, and only by being wily and careful, can we navigate this.

But, as McVay himself points out, this could be an era of innovation, where cream rises to the top and we find ways to overcome adversity. This could, too, see a meaningful increase in diversity behind and in front of the camera as new opportunities and methods arise. Some doors close, but others could yet open.

The Relationship of Writers and Critics - A Response to Sarah Phelps, Niall Johnson and The ABC Murders

Another year, another Christie adaptation that does well but causes a ruckus among devotees of Mystery's First Lady. TV veteran and self-described 'Pervert' Sarah Phelps turned her skills to adapting one of Poirot's adventures, but as with Ordeal of Innocence, rejigged it to surprise audiences. Poirot is now old and faded, a shadow of his former self, and his battle with the elusive 'A.B.C' takes on a seemingly more personal dimension.

Now ostensibly, fans being upset about changes to source material is par for the course and wouldn't be worth talking about, save for in this instance, an additional debate arose. Phelps, as her moniker implies, is very upfront about her views, and as such, tends to joke or shrug off Twitter critique. One such example was from poet Niall Johnson, who wrote a detailed review of his dislike of the adaptation. Phelps blew it off and this then engendered discussion about viewers having the right, or need, to speak directly with creators.

Sure enough, this snowballed into other screenwriters offering their two pence on taking critique from Joe public.

DISCLOSURE: I do not know either of the two main individuals or have read the original 'The ABC Murders'. While Phelps could've, perhaps, taken the criticism better, she is also a veteran screenwriter with a particular sense of humour and it's not my place to lecture her. As for Johnson, while the review is passionate, it's also a little dodgy in structure and overfocuses on fealty to source material and not enough on the merits or negatives of the series itself as a standalone work.

This is an interesting topic for me, having walked on both sides: longtime followers know I used to do film and TV criticism, starting in an amateur capacity on Youtube before transitioning to, however briefly, paid work for websites. There is a tendency, however innaccurate, to assume that critics are some manner of vanguard, a sort of 'quality police', there to tell Hollywood or the industry wherever what's right and wrong. Add in the democratization of opinion, where anyone with an internet connection and a platform can share their views i.e. be a critic, surely it must be a free for all?

Of course, a cursory glance at box office or ratings guide like the BARB show that negatively reviewed material does not always do badly, nor does well reviewed material always do well. Nor should numbers determine what you like: we all have differing opinions/tastes and there's nothing wrong with that. However, that right to express views is not what's being taken umbrage with here. Rather, this is about if said democratization entitles one to address and critique a creator directly on a large platform, regardless of said critic's merit or background.

Partially yes, but mostly no. INSOFAR AS TAGGING CREATORS IN, I must stress.

Yes, the openness of a platform like Twitter makes criticism or differing views impossible to avoid, and so long as terms of Use are not violated, they are fine to do so. However, it's important to remember Phelps, Holdsworth, Jenner and others are not against criticism; they just don't find it tactful for people to bombard them directly with reviews. Boundaries exist and politeness doesn't matter if you're crossing a decorum line. It's the presumption that being a viewer on Twitter entitles you to have a direct audience with a creator i.e. @ your reviews.

Even if you don't intend it to be rude, it still is, since you're shoving your work directly under someone's nose when you have no real need to, since there are other ways to express opinion, and presuming you must be listened to. Yes, Twitter is a public platform, but there's a considerable difference between simply writing up your opinion, positive or negative, and sharing among peers or enthusiasts, and then shoving your critique right in the face of a creator. By doing this, you are presuming your view is more worthy of specific attention when there's no qualifiers for it: your own subjective opinion is no more inferior or superior to someone else who shared it via normal channels.

It also, unhelpfully, presumes there's no quality control in the industry (Script editors, development and producers? What's that?!), or that creators never get told no. Oooh boy, where do you even begin with that... 

And that's not getting into the logistical headache of how does a creator read through reams and reams of often contradictory opinions on platforms as big as Twitter or reddit or Youtube? How does he or she decide what gets priority? By platform? By length? By quality of grammar and punctuation? By the fact that the person is a writer? If so, what kind? Is a playwright or novelist's argument as valid as a another screenwriter's?

Even on the professional side, critics don't really view themselves as guides or advisors to the film or TV industry. That's not the relationship. They don't write reviews with the purpose of making an artist change their work: they write because they have a passion for the medium and want to express and discuss their reactions, emotional and intellectual, to a creator's work. They help us see their work in a grander context. Mark Kermode's certainly spoken many times about the difference between critics and practitioners. If critics had enough power to really kill a project or tell off the biz, well, BvS and Venom, among many examples.

So, does all this mean the industry is above reproach and you can't criticize things? NO. You can still write or film reviews, still going on Twitter or reddit and discuss and still be free to watch what you want to. But do it because you want to talk and debate, because you have passion, not because you want to be an armchair director and tell people FAR MORE EXPERIENCED than yourself how to do their jobs. That's not criticism or brutal honesty, that's hubris and both fandom and the industry are filled with enough wannabes as is.

Feedback from Big Finish - The Paul Spragg 2017 Short Trip Competition

Normally I don't write about when I enter any sort of scheme, contest or opportunity aimed at writers: not just because, like many a Catholic boy, I fear jinxes, but also because it's rather pointless to do so. Why make a big deal out of something that isn't a certainty?

But this is different. And very nice.

Ian Atkins is the editor for the Short Trips, a range of Doctor Who audio short stories produced by Big Finish. For the last two years, they've held an annual contest to find new writing talent. How? Write a 30 minute short story, or rather its outline and opening, and then submit. The top 100 of their selection are the only ones who receive feedback from Ian, given the sheer amount of submissions they get.

So, lookie lookie what popped into my inbox:

Hi Abel,

Thanks for writing in. We had hundreds of submissions (as last year) and I couldn't reply to all of them. However, in some cases I wanted to make an effort where although the work didn't quite make the final short list, it was very, very good. I thought this was a wonderfully human story, beautifully character-driven even when neither protagonist is actually human, which takes some real skill. Thanks for letting me read it,

Best wishes, and do keep writing,

Ian 

This was a real pick-me-up, and I am very, very grateful for the kind words and encouragement from Ian and the BF crew.