Writing and Selling Thriller Screenplays E-Book

Lucy V. Hay

• Herausgeber: Creative Essentials
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 502

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Beschreibung

Writing and Selling Thriller Screenplays has the lowdown on how to get your thriller feature script on to the page, and how to get it in front of producers and investors. First published in 2013, this new edition offers an all-new resources section and a host of new case studies that map the considerable changes of the past decade. With marketplace disruptors such as Netflix and the first phases of The Marvel Cinematic Universe leaving their mark, new opportunities have been created for screenwriters and filmmakers who are keen to get their stories in front of industry professionals. This time around, Lucy V Hay doesn't just guide you through the writing of movies, but spec TV pilots too. Putting iconic, mixed-genre projects under the microscope -such as Stranger Things (horror thriller), Brooklyn 99 (comedy thriller) and Lost (sci fi thriller) - she considers what writers can learn from these shows. She also argues that the lone protagonist in a thriller has had its day and looks at how the genre is moving into a space beyond 'The Hero's Journey'. Case studies to support this include The Hunger Games, Captain Marvel, Iron Man and many more. Finally, the book considers how the screenplay might be sold to investors, exploring high concept ideas, pitching, packaging and the realities of film finance - all updated for the 2020s - and lays out alternative routes to sales and production, including transmedia such as novels and adaptation, and immersive storytelling online.

Leseprobe

FOREWORD

Thriller: a genre that comes in all shapes and sizes, from low-budget, contained tiny indie productions to massive multimillion blockbusters; from epic high-octane sci-fi or fantasy TV series, to low-key cerebral murder mysteries. Thrillers straddle every imaginable genre, creating sub- and cross-genres of their own, embracing elements like vast science-fiction and fantasy worlds or period settings; female protagonists; ensemble casts and non-linear structures. In short, there’s nothing thrillers can’t do, plus they perform consistently well in the marketplace, making them a good bet for producers and/or screenwriters wanting to make a splash.

Ten years after the first edition of this book, the thriller landscape looks rather different nowadays. I’ve been a script reader and script editor for just over 20 years, and I’d venture to say there’s been more change in the past five to six years than the fifteen that preceded them. The advent of streaming technology, plus audiences’ desire to ‘binge’ content, not to mention the rise of the ‘four-quadrant audience’ – that’s ‘old, young, male, female’ – has meant significant changes to how the industry does business. This also means what producers and agents are looking for in the spec pile has had to change too!

A decade ago, feature-length screenplays had the most currency in the industry: TV people would tend to read spec features, whereas film people would not tend to read spec TV pilots. In the 2020s it is the opposite: producers are likely to ask writers if their movie ideas could be limited series (aka serials). You will find out why in the course of this book, plus there is a new breakdown on what goes into writing serials, plus how the TV landscape has changed in the Netflix era.

First up, be warned: Writing & Selling Thriller Screenplays is NOT a ‘how to screenwrite’ book. I am making the assumption you know how to format your spec screenplay (courier 12 point, normal margins if you don’t); and that you know the basics of writing craft. This book concentrates on more advanced elements of the craft, such as plotting archetypes, character tropes and genre conventions; it will also go into detail about such advanced career strategies as transmedia and film finance.

Divided into three parts, the book first gives a brief history of the thriller genre and the characters that frequently appear in them, both in produced content and the spec pile. All my case studies are both old and new, iconic and hidden gem, feature-length (aka movie) and television this time around. I have attempted to ensure most of the movies and TV series mentioned are easy to access: you should be able to find them (or trailers/clips of them) on platforms such as (but not limited to) Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, BFIplayer or YouTube though this will depend on territory and where you are in the world. Inevitably, I can only scratch the surface of such a broad genre in terms of examining produced movies; this means the focus of the book concentrates on the Hollywood model of the thriller genre, so the majority of films I discuss are British and American. If you’re a big fan of European, Eastern or art-house cinema, you may be disappointed, but given the ‘hugeness’ of the thriller genre I had to make a decision on what would mean the most to the most amount of people, especially when so many native English speakers appear to hate subtitles.

By the way: very often writers will read case studies of produced content but not bother watching (or rewatching) the produced versions. This is a mistake. To get the most out of this book – and screenwriting education in general for that matter – it’s a good idea to compare and contrast your own thoughts on the craft with the produced versions for consolidation purposes. It’s also a great idea to IMMERSE yourself in the thriller genre, so you can understand what’s come before and how you can write ‘the same… but different’ (or even ‘bust’ the genre – you can’t do any of this intuitively, it requires study). This also means there will be spoilers AND LOTS OF THEM, so be warned. There will also be some swearing – B2W is known as ‘sweary writing tips’ on social media after all! You will also find a list of resources at the back of this book to help you with your own thriller endeavours.

Lastly, I would like to thank you for buying this book, especially if you are a ‘Bang2writer’ who forms part of the B2W community online. Your participation is greatly appreciated and I love to see and speak to you all – yes, even the ‘Dudeflakes’ who handily step onto my grill! Seriously, none of this would be possible without you all and I am grateful to each and every last one of you. See you online very soon.

Lucy V. Hay, February 2023

PART ONE

WHAT IS A THRILLER?

‘People keep asking me if I’m back and I haven’t really had an answer, but now? Yeah: I’m thinking I’m back.’

Keanu Reeves as John Wick, written by Derek Kolstad

DEFINITION OF THRILLER

Thriller has to be the most misunderstood genre in the spec pile. Despite getting the hang of horror, being clued-up on comedy and down on drama, screenwriters don’t always seem to understand that their thriller screenplays need to thrill. Such a small thing, yet it means everything. I’ve read hundreds, probably thousands, of screenplays that have sought to call themselves ‘thrillers’, yet very few bear any kind of resemblance to the thrillers I see at the cinema or via streaming services. Yet thrillers being ‘thrilling’ is something we all demand at a grassroots level, as noted in this straightforward (albeit rather non-illuminating) dictionary definition:

Thriller(noun)

1. A novel, play or movie with an exciting plot, typically involving crime or espionage.

2. A person, thing or experience that thrills.

Thriller is an incredibly broad genre, so attempting a thriller screenplay for the first time – or, indeed, rewriting one – may seem like a daunting task to screenwriters. The problem is immediately apparent: what is deemed ‘thrilling’ to one person may make another claw his/her eyes out with boredom. Looking to produced movies in isolation may not help either, since everyone has different views on what makes a ‘good’ film (never mind what makes thrillers ‘thrilling’!) and this includes the actual people who write and make them. Similarly, while thrillers have so many subgenres and cross-genres, not to mention various common elements, they nevertheless have lots to set them apart from one another (more about that in a minute).

So how can we look at the thriller genre, when it is so broad and complex? Jon Spaihts, one of the writers of Prometheus (2012), whose spec thriller Shadow 19 sold to Warner Bros in 2006, tweeted this excellent and concise summary of how thrillers work:

‘In thrillers the hero is reactive; a firefighter. The villain is the fire. The villain’s plan is in some ways the soul of your story.’

As a script editor and reader, I couldn’t agree more. Putting the villain or antagonist in the driving seat is what sets thrillers apart from all other genres, including horror. Making your protagonist/s work to foil the antagonist’s ‘plan’ (or similar) is the foundation of your story; all other elements are then piled on top of it, including subgenre, characters and even how the plot is executed, as illustrated by this very good Wikipedia entry on the thriller genre:

‘The aim for thrillers is to keep the audience alert and on the edge of their seats. The protagonist in these films is set against a problem – an escape, a mission, or a mystery. No matter what subgenre a thriller film falls into, it will emphasise the danger the protagonist faces. The tension with the main problem is built on throughout the film and leads to a highly stressful climax. The cover-up of important information from the viewer and fight and chase scenes are common methods in all of the thriller subgenres, although each subgenre has its own unique characteristics and methods.’

So whether your protagonist is female and fighting home invasion (as in Panic Room, 2002); or a male protagonist attempting to expose his mafioso bosses (The Firm, 1993); or a child, tortured by visions of dead people (The Sixth Sense, 1999); or an ensemble cast of doctors fighting disease (Contagion, 2011), your thriller screenplay must ensure that your protagonist overcomes all the obstacles put in their way by the antagonist/s, not to mention the situation at hand.

START AS YOU MEAN TO GO ON

‘Make sure you know the world you are in. Study the form, so you know each and every nuance of the language available to you. You can only do this by observing, in detail, how others have used it in the past. You cannot hope to know a genre, let alone make it your own, without sleeping with it regularly. Be promiscuous and bed every damn title on the shelf.’

– Gub Neal, producer (@GubNeal)

Before we really put the thriller genre under the microscope, stop! Forget all you know – or think you know – about thrillers. Forget about those cool set pieces you want to write in the second act; forget about your brooding heroes or your haunted heroines. Forget about ‘refragmenting the narrative’ or ‘vertical writing’ or ‘rising action’ or whatever the cool screenwriting buzz phrases of the moment are. Think instead about your story’s identity.

Arguably the biggest issue I see in thriller screenplays is that they don’t ‘feel’ like thrillers in the first instance. The reasons for this can be varied and complex but, generally speaking, the writer has neglected to set the tone and the rules of the story world we are dealing with. More often than not, the writer believes erroneously that we must be introduced to the characters first, THEN the story. They’ll frequently attempt this via dream sequences, flashbacks and early morning/getting ready for the day montages (all three if the reader’s *really* lucky!).

First things first then, research is key. Many writers mistakenly believe they must avoid watching or reading in their chosen genre, in case of being adversely influenced and accidentally copying what has gone before. This opposite is true: if you want to write a thriller screenplay, you need to watch and read a LOT of thrillers! All the thrillers mentioned or broken down in this book are easy to source on this basis; they are frequently for mass audiences and part of various streaming subscriptions, or available for rent at low cost. (Some you may have seen already, though I urge you to watch them again with a notebook or worksheet in hand this time, rather than relying on memory, especially if you watched it many years ago. Stories can be surprising when revisited for work!).

As a first exercise then, consider the following questions about how produced thrillers start out when watching your favourites as research:

How does it begin? (Situation and first image we see)Is there a prologue? Is there a big chunk of exposition to understand the story world? Does the story smash straight into the problem at hand, or is it ‘slow burn’?How do the characters interact? Are they happy and oblivious, or stressed out and anxious? Somewhere in-between?What is the ‘feel’ of the piece: is it unstable, threatening from the outset? Or are we plunged from a happy home to a living nightmare somehow? Something else?What is the tone and story world we’re entering? How do we know?

Regarding the last question: tone is everything in the thriller. Defined in the dictionary as ‘the general character or attitude of a place, piece of writing, situation, etc.’ tone helps us understand how a story world and the characters within it work. It is worth remembering thrillers are less about the human element of the day-to-day minutiae of life and more about ‘bigger’, high concept threats. There are also conventions (aka tropes) to the thriller that target audiences literally sign up for, such as the ticking clock or deadlines (and which I will go into in further chapters of this book).

Studying the genre is the ONLY way to ensure you don’t accidentally fall into cheesy or stale ideas, tropes, characters or plots. It will also help you understand who your target audience is, what they expect from your ‘type’ of thriller and how to subvert those expectations so your story and characters feel fresh and relatable. The first thing we can do is ask, ‘Why this story?’.

WHY THIS STORY?

‘Why this thriller NOW? Try to plunge a big tap root into a current issue, concern, anxiety or the zeitgeist ether. If you tweak a raw nerve with your storytelling you start with the engine running.’

– Barbara Machin, producer, screenwriter and show runner

At the turn of the noughties, the spec pile was full of very worthy, very personal dramas. Nowadays, genre is the name of the game. Thriller is rising to the top of the spec pile on account of its versatility, both for low-budget filmmakers and audiences. Low-budget filmmakers now tend to shoot on digital (thus keeping costs down) and movies made for a few hundred thousand pounds can now look like they’ve had a million spent on them if made ‘right’.

Indie producers have learnt a few tricks from Hollywood in selling their movies to the public, too: just like their Tinseltown counterparts, they want marketable scripts with a strong hook and commercial premise to attract big-name actors with, which means they can then sell their films to distributors easily. With the advent of social media and streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime, audiences are voting with their feet and getting behind indie films more than ever. This means your low-budget thriller screenplay has more chance than ever to pick up a deal, get made and distributed to audiences across the globe.

Similarly, even a big-budget, epic, blockbuster-style spec thriller screenplay can open doors for a spec screenwriter. Though the latter has little chance of being made if you are a complete unknown, stranger things have happened and, at the very least, some scriptwriting contests – particularly American ones – appear to love them. In addition, agents and producers have been known to check out these scripts as samples as they consider the writers for ‘writer for hire’ work.

What’s more, there’s been a significant shift in the last decade since I wrote the first edition of this book. In 2013, feature-length spec screenplays had the most currency: industry pros working in television tended to read features as well, whereas film pros didn’t tend to read spec TV pilots. The reason for this was because television was expensive and writers without credits found it notoriously difficult to get their shows greenlit for a very, very limited number of slots.

However, it’s a different story in the 2020s because of one major change in the past decade: streaming. Tony Jordan, CEO of Red Planet Productions and producer of such classic British TV such as Life on Mars and Death In Paradise explains why:

‘Streamers have made an impact, definitely,’ Tony says, ‘in order to match the budgets streamers have, broadcasters have to come together.’

This influx of money has brought significant change to the television landscape across the board and means spec TV pilots are much more in demand than they were a decade ago. When I was growing up in the 1990s, the general consensus was that TV was thought of as the ‘inferior cousin’. This meant stars would move *from* television to movies, but now it feels like it’s the other way around.

‘Talent on TV is off the scale now,’ Tony confirms, ‘actors and stars who were doing films before are now interested. They want to investigate characters over ten hours; they also know they can reach a worldwide audience.’

Tony makes a great point here about worldwide audiences. One of the reasons movies were always seen as so prestigious in the past was because they were sold in multiple territories to multiple audiences who would all go and see them at the same place: the cinema.

Whilst TV series were also sold in different territories, what that meant would depend on which channel and how they scheduled it. A series might be bought for a major channel – such as BBC1 – but could be dumped in the graveyard slot past midnight. Or a channel could buy a show and schedule it on a prime-time slot like 6pm, but its smaller audience share might mean fewer see it there!

Yet in the streaming era, schedules no longer have the impact they once had. Whilst some thriller series – such as Amazon Prime’s Picard (2019–2022) or The Boys (2019–2022) are updated weekly on Fridays during their season runs, the vast majority drop their entire series all at once to capitalise on audience’s love of bingeing.

This is all good news for Tony. ‘This also creates more freedom for writers… If I wrote a pilot fifteen years ago, I could go to the BBC, ITV, maybe Sky with it. Now I have fifty choices.’

Having a potential cornucopia of places to go with your pilot does not mean all the industry doors are suddenly thrown open, however.

‘All this competition is worse for mediocre writers,’ Tony says, ‘you have to respect the craft and work hard. You can’t phone it in and expect to get ahead.’

Of course, it’s not all good news. In the post-Covid landscape, streamers have to compete with one another as costs of living go up and people look to keep subscription costs down. At the time of writing this book, multiple media commentators have warned of an incoming ‘age of austerity’ where there won’t be quite as much money to go around in TV production, though what this will mean remains to be seen.

COMMON THRILLER REHASHES IN THE SPEC PILE

‘I think the fundamentals of success have remained constant. Writers must apply themselves towards developing their ideas into scripts. Irrespective of whether those scripts get produced, writing them is the only way you’ll become practised in the craft of creating compelling character arcs and thrilling stories.’

– Jed Mercurio, producer & showrunner (@Jed_Mercurio)

So, what does ‘phone it in’ mean? Though there are, of course, lots of ways for thriller screenplays to play out, I generally get one of the following when it comes to thriller spec TV pilots and feature-length screenplays:

A time-traveller and a ragtag group of his or her friends end up in various historical time periods and cause havoc wherever they end up. (If this sounds like Doctor Who to you, that’s because it is!)A male antagonist vs a male protagonist; a ‘small-scale’ situation (i.e. a man searching for his missing wife, in whose disappearance he is a suspect); a non-linear storyline. (Writers seeking to make substitutions here will usually have a female protagonist vs a male antagonist, usually a psychopathic doctor or scientist; our protagonist will be searching for her girlfriend, who will frequently be trapped by said psychopathic doctor in a hospital *for some reason*).A special unit is employed to look into supernatural or alien events – yes, just like The X Files. This is not necessarily a problem IF the writer comes up with a new slant of some kind, but they rarely do. A gang of criminal friends who are working for a Mr Big character; one of the gang wants to leave ‘the life’ and the rest of his friends then have to kill him, on the orders of Mr Big. (Sometimes writers will attempt to subvert this story, in the style of Sexy Beast [2000], by including dream sequences or extensive flashbacks or other non-linear devices, but hardly ever by focusing on female gangsters or characters of different ethnic minorities, which I always find interesting).A woman moves into a haunted house, usually after the death of her own child. She will see ghosts, dead people, blood coming up the plughole, etc, but of course her husband doesn’t and wants to commit her to the funny farm until the resolution, where he sees the spirits at work *for some reason*. (In recent years, scribes have swapped the gender roles, so it’s the man haunted by the dead child, to the chagrin of the oblivious wife instead).A group of super-humans come together because of some catalyst event and find themselves up against a villain who wants to destroy the world or universe as we know it. (Yup, a rehash of X Men or Avengers!).

There is, of course, no reason for any of the above not to work: I’ve read some excellent screenplays that follow one of these six storylines or their variations. However, when trying to stand out from the crowd, it’s far easier to do so when your spec thriller screenplay is easily differentiated, using a story the average reader has not seen a million times before. Thinking, ‘Why this story?’, rather than going with your first idea blindly, empowers you as a writer to find out if your story really is the best it can be or whether you’re jumping into ground many, many others have tilled previously.

BEGINNING, MIDDLE, END

‘Keep the script lean and pacey, don’t get bogged down with unnecessary set up, scene description and (especially) exposition. Structure the action around exciting set-pieces; don’t let the story slow to a grind with introspective character studies or indulgent dialogue scenes.’

– Danny Stack, script editor & writer/director (@DannyStack_)

Structure. An element of screenwriting that never fails to have people gnashing their teeth with frustration and rage. All manner of accusations are levelled at it, from the notion it’s horribly formulaic, through to its even being responsible for killing one’s creativity. Generally, I tend to think of structure as the three acts described by Aristotle in Poetics, simply because it makes the most sense to me and because the industry (as I’ve experienced in meetings and similar) tends to talk about ‘acts’.

Before I go further, however, it should be noted I am not a purist. I believe whatever works for the individual screenwriter is valid, be it three acts, five acts, Syd Field’s Paradigm, John Truby’s 22 Steps, Chris Soth’s Mini-Movie Method, Blake Snyder’s Save The Cat! Approach, or something else. As far as I’m concerned, all a story really needs is a beginning, middle and end (and not necessarily in that order). I’m a passionate believer in the notion of story counting above all else, which is why I always stop short of ‘page counting’ for turning points, etc, preferring instead to rely on ‘intuitive script editing’, i.e. does a particular moment in the story ‘feel’ as if it is in the ‘right’ place?

So, those disclaimers aside, put bluntly, I see thriller structure broken down basically as follows:

ACT ONE – SET UP: Protagonist presented with problem by the antagonist; the protagonist *needs* to solve it (s/he can’t just walk away).ACT TWO – CONFLICT: Protagonist is presented with variety of obstacles by the antagonist…MIDPOINT: Things get worse/eye of the storm (as appropriate).ACT TWO – CONFLICT: Those obstacles keep coming and the protagonist must keep overcoming them, even though each obstacle is more difficult than the last.ACT THREE – RESOLUTION: Looks like all is lost for the protagonist… It looks like the antagonist is going to win… And then the protagonist turns it around *in some way* and solves the problem (or not, as the case may be).

Structure is not a ‘quick fix’ cure, and nor should it be. However, I do think it works as a good model to place our spec thriller screenplays against, to establish whether they work or not (plus what that means and why). As with anything else, it will depend on the story you’re telling. That said, there are particular templates, conventions or expectations audiences have of plot generally and thriller is no different in this regard.

THE MONOMYTH VERSUS THE HERO’S JOURNEY

One such structural template that does turn up again and again in the thriller is The Hero’s Journey. Most writers have heard of this, but not everyone knows it’s a reiteration of a previous work, The Hero With A Thousand Faces (1949) by Joseph Campbell. In the book Campbell discusses his theory of the journey of the archetypal hero which he termed The Monomyth.

Campbell argued all mythological narratives followed a very similar structure. The most obvious here would be Homer’s Odyssey. Homer’s epic poem details Odysseus’ 10-year struggle to return home after the Trojan War (yes, the one with the wooden horse that took down Troy). While Odysseus battles mythical creatures and faces the wrath of the gods, his wife Penelope and his son Telemachus stave off suitors vying for Penelope’s hand and Ithaca’s throne long enough for Odysseus to return.

The Monomyth is in seventeen stages and breaks down as follows, according to Campbell:

Departure:

1. The Call To Adventure. This is the inciting incident that draws our hero into the story for some reason. Remember, we don’t watch movies or TV shows ‘about characters’; we watch movies and TV shows ‘about characters who DO SOMETHING for SOME REASON.’ In the case of the thriller, a protagonist will most often be in ‘the wrong place, wrong time’ and be dragged into the antagonist’s ‘evil plan’.

2. Refusal of the Call. Very few protagonists want to engage at first across all genres, but this is especially true in the thriller genre. Remember, thrillers are antagonist-led and your protagonist is most likely in the ‘wrong place, wrong time’.

3. Meeting the mentor. Most thrillers have a character who shows the protagonist the ropes in some way. This might be an overt mentor like Morpheus in The Matrix or it may be a ‘stealth mentor’ who seems like they’re on the other side, or who even helps by accident when they’re trying to get in the way.

4. Crossing The First Threshold. I like to think of this one as being around plot point one in the traditional Three Act Structure, though sometimes it can be pulled back to around page 10 (aka minute ten) or left under later. It depends on the story being told. However it’s worth remembering there’s no time to waste in thriller.

5. Belly of the whale. Campbell is referencing the bible story of Jonah and The Whale here. If you’re not a practising Christian, you may never have heard of this story. Put simply, Jonah didn’t want to do what God instructed him to do – and had to learn his lesson by being swallowed by a whale. In the same way, in this part of the story, the thriller hero passes from the ordinary world into his or her (or their) adventure whether they like it or not.

Initiation:

6. The Road of Trials. This is where the REAL obstacles begin. Remember, thrillers need to escalate, so think of your hero as climbing walls, each one bigger than the last towards that ultimate showdown.

7. The Meeting With The Goddess. This is where the Monomyth really starts to show its age. On the road, the hero may meet a powerful female figure who will help him somehow. The goddess may be a mystical or supernatural being or she may be an ordinary woman with whom the hero gains support. Obviously this is a step that can be used, but is not strictly necessary in modern screenwriting.

8. The Woman As Temptress. Aaaaand here we go again! The Hero is cast as automatically male again and of course, jezebels and sirens tempt him and try to distract him, or get in his way (ack).

9. Atonement With The Father/The Abyss. Here so-called ‘Daddy issues’ come into play. The (male) hero must realise he is just like Dear Ol’ Dad. Whilst some thrillers deal with this notion, it’s probably not necessary. (Intriguingly in modern produced thrillers, female leads are more likely to have ‘Daddy issues’ than their male counterparts which I always find interesting).

10. Apotheosis. This is a super-fancy word that means ‘exaltation to divine rank; deification.’ In other words, this is the stage where the hero starts to fight back and even potentially win. His success makes him potentially ‘god-like’ according to The Monomyth.

11. The ultimate boon. This is the reward or thing the hero went on the quest to get. It might be metaphysical like ‘peace’, ‘enlightenment’ or ‘love’, but in modern thrillers is very likely to be a specific artefact like the ark in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) or The ‘Kragle’ in The Lego Movie (2014), which must be reunited with ‘the piece of resistance’ by ‘The Special’ before evil President Business (Will Ferrell) sticks everybody and everything down forever.

Return:

12. Refusal of Return – This is where modern thriller screenwriting starts to deviate from The Monomyth. Whilst this is the first step of the return stage, the hero is initially reluctant to return to their mundane life. It could be argued this element is more use in thriller movie sequels or further seasons of TV series, eg. in the case of a series like Ozark (2017–2022), the Byrdes have opportunity to cut their losses and escape, but they refuse to. As Wendy Byrde (Laura Linney) always insists ‘Don’t you quit on me now.’

13. Magic Flight – Though the hero has answered their call and completed the reason for their journey, they are still chased by others. Here feels like a retread of step ٢ on this list – ‘refusal of the call’.

14. Rescue From Without – We’re back with the mentor again from step ٣. Another retread.

15. Crossing the Return Threshold – This one is tough to place in modern screenwriting, though it could be argued this is ‘the last hurrah’. In past thrillers of the 1980s and 1990s, sometimes the antagonist looks like he has been vanquished, only to return for a last go at victory but that’s not so common now.

16. Master of Two Worlds – Since the hero has been on the journey, they need to learn to balance their mundane life and the world they experienced on the journey. Again, this doesn’t seem especially relevant to thrillers.

17. Freedom to Live – The hero acclimates back into their mundane life and lives peacefully. Thrillers are never meant to be peaceful, so this must be the ending of the story.

As we can see then, whilst The Monomyth can be useful, it’s rather dated and more than a little sexist in the way it’s described. What’s more, not all of its stages really ‘fit’ with thrillers or even modern screenwriting as a whole, especially steps 12-17 which feel like a bunch of retreads.

Let’s contrast all The Monomyth against Christopher Vogler’s version. Working as an Exec for Disney, Fox and Warner Bros, Vogler was very inspired by Campbell. Vogler used Campbell’s work to create a 7-page company memo for Hollywood screenwriters, A Practical Guide to The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

This became The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Storytellers and Screenwriters, which is frequently referred to as just The Hero’s Journey. It breaks down as follows, into just twelve sections to Campbell’s seventeen:

Departure

1. Ordinary world

2. Call to adventure

3. Refusal of the call

4. Meeting with the mentor

5. Crossing the first threshold

Initiation

6. Tests, allies and enemies

7. Approach to the inmost cave

8. The ordeal

9. Reward

Return

10. The road back

11. The resurrection

12. Return with the elixir

As we can see, Vogler does away with all the bits of Campbell’s work that take ‘too long’ at the ending or seem to suggest ideas that feels like a retread. ‘Resurrection’ and ‘Return with the elixir’ are the only two that are hugely different in terms of language, but even so it’s obvious what Vogler is getting at: the hero returns, victorious.

He also removes the religious allegory and the latent sexism that suggests women aren’t heroes or are wily jezebels that get in men’s way. He also streamlines many of the stages so it feels much more vital and smooth.

There’s a strong chance you feel very familiar with The Hero’s Journey, even if this is the very first time you’ve seen it written down. This is because it’s acted as a template for nearly every thriller or action-adventure blockbuster movie for the past four decades. Chances are you can think of your favourite thriller and see immediately how it corresponds with the stages laid out by Vogler.

‘THE SAME… BUT DIFFERENT’

Writers frequently hear the phrase, ‘the same… but different’, but just as often misunderstand what it means: they either go too ‘samey’ with their concepts, imitating those produced movies they’ve seen, or they go too different, meaning their specs are a difficult sell. As with most things in scriptwriting (or, indeed, life), ‘the same… but different’ is about balance.

Consider two thrillers which are obviously similar: Die Hard (1988), in which a bloody, daring siege takes place in a towering building; and Con Air (1997), in which prisoners perform an equally bloody and daring coup on their guards, this time on board an airplane. In both, only one man can stop the criminals, holding everyone, literally, to ransom. But crucially, John McClane in Die Hard and Cameron Poe in Con Air are two quite different men. Perhaps just as importantly though, Hans Gruber and Cyrus the Virus are two very different antagonists. And, what’s more, the secondary characters and their individual role functions are very different in each film. So, whilst we might have the same spirit and tone in both films (larger than life, with comedic and action elements), we nevertheless have wildly different characters and settings (building versus a plane).

So, if you want to attempt ‘the same… but different’, take a good look at what has gone before. Work out what you want to emulate and how, whilst still ensuring your script has its own original take on the story. It is difficult to get right, but, if you can, this will really help your spec thriller’s chances in the marketplace in the long run. (For more on ‘the same… but different’, check out Part Two of this book under ‘genre busting’, and find out what you can really do in this respect to get attention for your thriller screenplay).

ON ‘RISK-AVERSE’ HOLLYWOOD

Lots of writers like to pontificate online about how Hollywood is ‘risk-averse’ and should be ‘braver’ in funding more original projects. Yet Hollywood is not a patron of the arts, plus no one makes money from throwing it into the void on a hunch (hell, you can lose money even when you’ve done your homework and crunched the numbers!).

This is why sequels, reboots, remakes and franchises are favoured over new projects because, like it or not, audiences literally favour them too. It’s a sad fact that even an underperforming franchise film tends to do better at the box office than an original film.

In the first two years of 2020s alone we have had the following thriller remakes, reboots and franchise movies (and this list only scratches the surface!):

– Bad Boys For Life (2020)

– Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

– The Witches (2020)

– Mulan (2020)

– Fast & Furious Part 9 (2021)

– No Time To Die (2021)

– Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021)

– Dune (2021)

– Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021)

– The King’s Man (2021)

– The Suicide Squad (2021)

– Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

– Morbius (2022)

– Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022)

– The Batman (2022)

– Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

– Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)

All of these movies made a big splash with audiences, either via their wallets, the chatter online, or both. Audiences lavished praise on them or excoriated them, saying they were the ‘best’ or ‘worst’ movies ever made. A couple of them were the focus of boycotts. Many of them received (grudging) praise from critics and a couple were critical darlings, receiving awards nominations.

Most importantly, all of them made money. Some were record-breakers. If the films underperformed in theatres, they still carried enough weight to attract a secondary audience via ‘home premieres’ on streaming services which charge extra for subscribers to see it ‘earlier’ than regular subscribers.

Whether we personally like such movies or characters is immaterial. Millions of people do, so that is their value. We can fight this – and lose – or we can accept that until people vote with their wallets and go to more original movies as standard, remakes and reboots are here to stay.

CINEMA VERSUS STREAMING

‘The Death of Cinema’ has been announced many times in the past 40 years. VHS, satellite television, video games and smartphones have all made a serious dent, with many independent cinemas closing in small towns and only huge, centralised multiscreen chain Odeons surviving in many places.

With the advent of streaming, we are seeing something similar occur in real time. Even streamers like Netflix, Amazon and Apple TV+ which seek added prestige for their movies via awards like the Oscars need only place their films in a handful of cinemas to become eligible (and who knows how long that stipulation will continue?).

In the past ten years studios have become complicit in killing off cinemas, launching their own platforms such as Disney+, Warner Bros or HBO Max. This means studios will be less inclined to give box office dollars to cinemas now that they have their own streaming platforms. The Covid pandemic accelerated this, showing multiplatform releases were possible and in some cases, even preferred by certain demographics.

‘Why go and see Death on the Nile when it’s available to stream?’ says Steve La Rue, a development executive who has worked for Paramount, NBC/Universal and Twentieth Century Fox, ‘No babysitter needed, no parking hassles, no Covid concerns.’

The core demographic of young males aged 15-25 years is still prized by cinemas, but the last decade has made some significant changes here too. A-list directors like Christopher Nolan or Michael Bay can still demand cinema releases for their films – but crucially, only if their movies make money.

Nolan’s hotly anticipated2020 thriller Tenet was nevertheless considered as a ‘box office flop’, as was Bay’s 2022 chase thriller Ambulance, despite being his best film in decades. What this means for their future releases remains unclear at the time of writing this book.

It is worth mentioning too Netflix recorded an epic loss of one million subscribers in 2022. As a market disruptor such a loss was considered ‘inevitable’ by media experts, especially as competition in the streaming space with multiple channels – both paid-for and free – grows. Rising cost of living was blamed for people tightening their belts and cutting back on subscription services. Other commentators suggested a number of other issues Netflix might be suffering, such as Netflix being too free and easy on favourite limited series cancellations; or platforming controversial comedians such as Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais; or their movie content being rather lacklustre in contrast to other streamers such as Amazon Prime, whose film Originals tend to receive more critical acclaim.

So it’s important to note no one really knows for definite, not even Oscar-winners like the writer-director Guillermo del Toro! Speaking to SlashFilm.com in 2022, he said:

‘There are many answers to what the future is. The one I know is not what we have right now. It is not sustainable. In so many ways, what we have belongs to an older structure.’ Del Toro referenced the abrupt, 1920s transition from silent films to talkies. ‘That’s how profound the change is. We are finding that it is more than the delivery system that is changing. It’s the relationship to the audience that is shifting. Do we hold it, or do we seek and be adventurous?’

If the lack of answers and forward-thinking on this issue is affecting A-listers like del Toro, then it will be an issue for people further down the food chain. That’s why I think it’s worth considering alternative routes to get industry pros’ attention, rather than ‘just’ write spec screenplays and cross our fingers.

CINEMA IS DEAD… AGAIN?

Now the older members of Generation Z (aka those born between approximately 1997 and 2010) are coming of age, it’s predicted cinema may have its biggest challenge yet.

‘For young females, streaming is the destination,’ says Steve La Rue, ‘Cinemas are still important, but only for four-quadrant movies like Spider-Man: No Way Home. The headline of the next ten years will be “survival of the fittest.”’

It’s clear there are going to be even more marked changes in the decades ahead. With studios effectively betting against themselves by creating their own streaming platforms and offering ‘home premieres’, it seems like cinema-going might finally be in real danger, especially when we consider many low-budget films have already effectively been ‘locked out’ of theatrical releases by rising distribution costs.

That said, cinemas have found lots of inventive ways to stay current in the past four decades. There’s ‘event cinema’ which shows livestreams and recordings of West End productions. There’s also re-releases of fan favourites at certain times of year: I finally saw both Home Alone and Die Hard on the big screen last Christmas which was a real treat, since I’d only watched them on VHS or TV. There’s also film festivals like Frightfest and of course, the big four-quadrant blockbusters that become an event too, such as Top Gun: Maverick and Jurassic World: Dominion both demonstrated in 2022.

So for everyone sounding the alarm, it’s not over… yet. It will be interesting to see what happens next. For now, we are in a period of transition.

THE ROUTE TO YOUR AUDIENCE

‘Give the audience your plants to allow them that sense of fear… They must fear, anticipate, worry about the protagonist.’

– Daniel Martin Eckhart, writer (@dmeckhart)

Audiences know what they want, so as writers we need to give it to them. This is not to say we should ‘dumb down’; far from it. It is possible to convey any manner of complex and interesting messages and themes within the perimeters of what audiences want… which is to be entertained, first and foremost. Forget this at your peril. It’s not rocket science. Yet the average spec thriller screenplay is not entertaining, because it has forgotten the notion of whom it’s actually FOR.

Like or loathe them, some of the most successful filmmakers of the last 30 or 40 years have made thrillers, many of them in the action subgenre: George Lucas; Steven Spielberg; Tony Scott; James Cameron; Quentin Tarantino; JJ Abrams; Christopher Nolan; Michael Bay. (Yes, even Michael Bay. Deal with it.) The reason these guys are so successful is because, though they often make testosterone-soaked sausage-fests, they provide what audiences want. In these cases, audiences want brooding heroes; epic arenas; huge fights, explosions and high-octane CGI-based sequences. The potential audience knows exactly what it’s going to get when it sees those filmmakers’ names attached to various films.

This is why people go in droves to see them. It is no accident blockbuster movies are often thrillers, comprising of action and adventure. That feted ‘four-quadrant’ audience – male, female, young, old – absolutely love to watch movies with larger-than-life characters and situations. At the time of writing this book, the top 10 highest grossing movies of all time (according to Box Office Mojo) were:

1. Avatar (2009)

2. Avengers: Endgame (2019)

3. Titanic (1997)

4. Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

5. Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

6. Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)

7. Jurassic World (2015)

8. The Lion King (2019)

9. Marvel’s The Avengers (2012)

10. Furious 7 (2015)

The past decade has been BIG news for thrillers. Nearly all the movies on the highest-grossing list are part of franchises, sometimes reboots or remakes as well. Eight out of ten of the movies are for the four-quadrant audience: families are able to enjoy them together, which means even once the theatrical release is over, they can stream them together.

All of the movies on the list are rated 12 (aka PG-13 in the USA). With the exception of Jurassic World and Furious 7, all of them are available on Disney+. Jurassic World is considerably more bombastic than its predecessors in the Jurassic Park franchise. Owen (Chris Pratt) is every bit the swashbuckling hero, rather than the ‘thinking man’s’ protagonist Alan Grant (Sam Neill) or stooge antagonist Doctor Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum). In contrast Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) is an ‘upgrade’ on the sidelined female characters of the originals like Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern). Even so, the Indominus Rex presents a credible monster threat, with many close-ups of people getting chomped that may scare younger children.

Whilst Furious 7 and Titanic are both rated 12 too, they have considerably more adult content in them than any of the other movies. In Furious 7’s case there is nudity, extended fight scenes, some considerable swearing and tobacco use.

The only one predating 2009 is Titanic (1997). Love or hate it, Titanic was a cultural phenomenon in the 1990s and has passed into cinema history as a cult favourite, plus its writer-director is James Cameron who is also responsible for Avatar (not to mention other thriller behemoths like Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Aliens). A mixed genre piece of both romance and thriller, there is a sex scene as well as considerable peril, plus it’s a true story (which may make some viewers upset at the thought of those things really happening). Titanic still benefits from Cameron’s expert take on thriller tropes, especially once the movie becomes a story of survival. Who can forget the hair-raising moment Rose and Jack hang on to the outside of the ship as it breaks in half and bobs upright, sending those still on the deck plummeting to their deaths?

Overall, writers can be assured the modern audience of all ages LOVE thrillers. There’s also a surprising diversity in what is ‘allowed’ in a blockbuster thriller aimed at a four-quadrant audience. As long as it’s exciting and racy but not too over-the-top, families will watch as well as individuals without children.

Now I’m not advocating we all write thrillers about giant killer sharks, dinosaurs, drag racing, shipwrecks, aliens or robots (though go ahead, if you want to). Rather I am suggesting we learn a lesson from the Spielbergs and Camerons and Nolans in terms of entertainment. Be honest about what you write, who you want to appeal to and how you are going to appeal to that potential audience. It’s no good to say, ‘Well, it’s great writing, it will appeal to everyone’ or ‘I see the trailer in my head, it’s gonna be awesome’. That way disappointment lies – for you, because it will never get ‘off the page’. You need to figure out exactly how you are going to entertain your audience, and you can’t do that without working out who they are first. In order to do so, I recommend thinking about the following:

What is my audience’s demographic? Be specific, but not too specific. It’s fine if you’re going primarily for a specific age group or gender but say stuff like ‘only white people will be interested’ and suddenly you seem like an over-privileged idiot.How can I open this up? Not so long ago the supposed core demo of cinema-going people was 15–25-year-old males. Whilst studios still like this demographic, in the 2020s the aforementioned ‘four-quadrant audience’ is much more highly prized. It’s not hard to see why: everyone loves a good yarn, well told. So if you can come up with a great story, with great characters, you have every chance of tapping into a MASS audience. Despite being ‘old’ movies now, the likes of Jurassic Park (1993) and Avatar (2009) do extremely well with audiences year on year, not because they are full of special effects but because people can relate to the stories, the characters, the messages behind them (whether we, as writers, agree with those messages or not). In the case of Jurassic Park, it’s also rather funny, in terms of both comedy dialogue and moments. There’s all manner of things you can do as a writer to ‘open up’ your audience and include as many people as possible, so never underestimate this.Why would they watch this movie? This is where you get really specific. It’s not good enough to say, ‘It’s really exciting.’ What has gone before? What is ‘the same… but different’ about it? How does it break new ground? How is this a new take on what we have seen already? What might your audience have seen before, which may make them want to watch your movie?

Last of all, never ever undervalue your audience, think they’re stupid or that you need to spoonfeed them. Modern audiences are smart; they are more media-literate than ever before and can decode stuff instantly. This is why you need to ‘hit the ground running’.

HITTING THE GROUND RUNNING

‘Open with something provocative, unusual, visual and dynamic.’

– Ed Hughes, Linda Seifert Management (@LindaSeifert)

A few decades ago, even Hollywood movies had ‘slow-burn’ techniques, but today modern audiences demand that stories ‘hit the ground running’. Where once audiences were happy to wait for the protagonist and the situation in hand to be introduced over the course of ten or even fifteen minutes, we now slam into the action within two or three, meaning screenwriters must adjust their techniques accordingly. Many thrillers even begin with a shocking or intriguing catalyst in the first minute, out of sync time-wise with the rest of the story, that then requires the audience to ‘rewind’ to days, or a few hours, earlier. (Interestingly, this, too, is now beginning to feel rather old hat, leading me to wonder if more slow-burning techniques may return, for want of a change?)

However you choose to open your thriller screenplay, it’s crucial to remember that character and story must be introduced hand in hand, which is possible even with slow-burn techniques. As mentioned previously, spec screenwriters often believe we must be introduced to the characters first, THEN the story. As a result, the reader (and thus the audience) is left waiting for the story to start. In this media-literate age, when audiences can pick up even the most scant of information and decode it instantly, being made to wait even just five minutes can spell disaster for your spec screenplay’s chances in the marketplace. Common mistakes from writers trying (and failing) to ‘hit the ground running’ include montages to attempt to set the tone; disjointed prologues that take too long to connect to events *in* the situation at hand; and flashbacks to unrelated events that are somehow ‘character-building’ for the protagonist, particularly if she is female. It is worth noting that female protagonists in spec thriller screenplays are commonly rape and child abuse survivors, and/or fighting depression or other mental illnesses. Beware of piling such pasts/backstories on your characters (not because issues of rape, abuse or mental illness, etc, are not serious or worth talking about). However, by making such backstories supposedly ‘character building’, you risk trivialising them and thus isolating your audience. Your audience will also have specific expectations of your thriller, which you need to bear in mind too.

TROPES & GENRE CONVENTIONS

When I was researching my 2017 book Writing Diverse Characters For Fiction, TV or Film it became obvious to me there’s a lot of confusion over what tropes really are. This was largely because the internet – particularly Twitter – uses the word ‘tropes’ to mean ‘I don’t like this’. I even read blogs and whole threads about how tropes were supposedly responsible for ‘ruining’ movies, TV and storytelling in general!

A trope is simply a ‘recurring idea or motif’ in a story that may or may not form part of genre conventions. Genre conventions are those elements (such as topics, tropes, characters, situations and plot beats) that are common in specific genres. Put simply, genre conventions are those recognisable things that ‘make’ a genre.

This means that tropes are NOT responsible for ‘ruining’ anything – writers literally need them to write stories!

For example, common tropes in the thriller genre include (but are not limited to):

– The lone protagonist ‘up against it’

– Detectives (police or amateur) who must solve a mystery

– Escape plans – most often literal

– Mind games such as manipulation or coercion

– High octane set pieces

– Reliance on plot-driven storytelling

– Life or death stakes

Just as most musical composition needs chords, stories need tropes. They form a framework for people to understand the story. It’s no good to reinvent the wheel when people actively WANT these things from your thriller!

But when is a trope not a trope? When it becomes a CLICHÉ: these are those moments where characters or plotlines are far too obvious, cheesy, stale or even offensive. We can guard against this by studying the craft and paying attention to sites such as www.tvtropes.org or www.tropedia.fandom.com which describe common and uncommon tropes, how they work and where they can be seen. Reading blogs and threads by marginalised people, plus paying for notes from paid-for script readers and sensitivity consultants can also help guard against cliché, but it should be stressed none of these are a magic bullet. There will always be someone who hates on your writing, no matter how much due diligence you do. You have to get okay with criticism, whether it’s warranted or not. It’s the nature of the job.

HORROR VERSUS THRILLER

Many writers and filmmakers mistakenly believe horror and thriller to be more or less the ‘same’ – leading many to label their scripts and pitches ‘Horror/thriller’. Whilst the two genres DO share some similar or even the same attributes, there are significant differences to place them apart (otherwise they wouldn’t be different genres!).

Whilst thrillers and horrors may ‘cross over’ in terms of tropes, topics, characters, situations a lot, HOW they do this will differ. So let’s break this down in a very obvious way.

As mentioned at the beginning of this book, thrillers need to be EXCITING. Everything the story does will be built around with this goal in mind. This is why chase sequences, stunts, explosions and other set pieces are so important in this genre – and why most blockbuster movies are thrillers. Even when thrillers are more cerebral (such as crime mysteries/whodunnits), excitement is still the core dynamic.

In addition, thrillers are usually ‘kicked off’ via a catalyst provided by the ANTAGONIST, not the protagonist – a key element to remember, because thrillers is the one genre that does this. This also means the audience are asked to put themselves in the place of the protagonist and relate to what they are going through at the hands of the antagonist.

In contrast, horror is supposed to SCARE us. Some writers believe this relates to gore but I don’t think it’s as simple as that (especially when thrillers are more gory than ever in the 2020s!). I don’t think it’s necessarily topics either: serial killers can be found in both thrillers and horrors; so can ghosts, aliens, haunted houses, exorcisms and so on.

So whilst some audience members might also be excited by being scared, that’s not the primary reason we’re watching. There’s a kind of voyeurism to Horror we don’t get in thriller: we are usually not asked to relate to the protagonist going through the horrifying things (hence the popular notion of hiding your face behind a cushion when you get ‘too’ scared by what’s on screen).

What’s more, unlike thriller, horror protagonists usually make active decisions to go into the ‘lion’s den’: they move into the haunted house; they adopt the possessed child; they land on the forbidden planet. In short, they go where they are not supposed to be and/or do what they are not supposed to do. This is a huge difference when we compare to the thriller protagonist who usually gets caught in the antagonist’s ‘spider web’ against their will.

However there is one genre convention that both thriller and horror share, which is the prime cause of confusion over the genres – ‘flight versus fight’. More, next.

DRAMATIC CONTEXT – FLIGHT VERSUS FIGHT

‘Think about putting us in the moment with the main character(s), so that we can react as they react… If we’re way ahead of the characters, it gets dull. The second half of that, of course, is that if we’re in the moment with the characters the pressure is on for them to react convincingly – and not be stupider than the audience.’

– Scott Mullen, screenwriter

Another thing that marks out the thriller is its dramatic context (though, unhelpfully, horror is very similar, hence the confusion with some writers). You’ve heard the saying, ‘Two sides to every story’? This is most true in thrillers, which typically ask their audiences to invest in two aspects of the protagonist’s struggle throughout the narrative:

Flight (non-engagement). This is where the protagonist chooses NOT to engage with the situation at hand and attempts to outrun the problem (often literally).Fight (engagement). The second half is where the protagonist must engage with the situation (or all is lost, again often literally) and, unsurprisingly, FIGHT or engage with the antagonist directly in some way.

Frequently the dramatic context of ‘flight’ will be the first half, or even three quarters, of the story, with ‘fight’ taking up the resolution (though, again, it obviously depends on the individual story and its execution). This transition is usually clearly marked for the audience, either in a given scene or moment, and most notably in the ‘prepare to fight’ montage that is so popular, particularly in action thrillers and classic creature thrillers like Aliens (1986) and Predator (1987).

MYSTERY AND THRILLER

‘Remember, audiences LOVE mystery. They love to watch and connect A-2-B, to figure it out as it’s happening, but, mostly, they love to be surprised with a clever story, something they never saw coming but in retrospect was obvious.’

– Chris Jones, writer/director (@livingspiritpix)

In the 2020s, mystery has cemented itself as a go-to device in thriller screenplays. This means modern television seeks out content that has mystery at its heart. This is again most obvious in crime series, especially police procedurals on television. However mystery thriller movies (of varied types, not just detective thrillers) also exist and can be a significant draw in the 2020s too.

Thanks to the popularity of serials in the streaming era, mystery presents the ultimate in ‘bingeworthy’ content for audiences. Mysteries typically have a big reveal at the end of the story, hence their colloquial name ‘Whodunnits’.

Mysteries tend to be cerebral on this basis. One of the reasons mystery is so popular in the streaming era is because it involves the audience in the story. Figuring out who is ‘Behind It All’ can be satisfying whether we’re right OR wrong. Of course, not all thrillers require mystery to qualify as a thriller, but it’s rare for mysteries to have zero thriller conventions at all. (For example, it’s common for characters who have figured out who is Behind It All to then be threatened with death by the antagonist in the showdown of Act 3).

There’s a number of genre conventions mysteries require to qualify as mysteries. They may not use all of them, but they typically use at least 1-3 of the following:

Red herrings are misleading or outright false clues. It is a common literary device used in mysteries that can lead the detectives (and thus the audience) down a false path or otherwise distract them from what’s really going on. (Why ‘red herring’? Because apparently herrings go red when smoked, but more importantly: a 1686 gentleman’s magazine suggested confusing foxhounds on a rival hunt by dragging a dead cat or red herring across their trail!)‘The Agatha Christie Rule’. Agatha Christie is largely thought to be the queen of mystery; she is still the bestselling author of all time with an amazing two billion sales to her name. Many academics have broken down and decoded her novels to try and work out her success. One element that has been proven over and over is the fact the culprit is always introduced and mentioned within the first 25 per cent of Christie’s stories. Her influence has led to scores of writers following this ‘rule’ in their own mysteries, so their mystery antagonists are ‘hiding in plain sight’ too. Working theories. Most detective characters (whether actual police or not) will indulge in working theories to try and make sense of the mystery. Often these working theories are incorrect or way off-base (as in ‘the version’ in the CSI franchise). We still need them to help advance the story. The Patsy or Wrong Suspect. Sometimes someone is caught and charged almost immediately for a crime. In the case of the Patsy, it’s a frame-up: someone has ensured that person is wrongfully charged or convicted somehow on purpose