Quoted from Niles_Crane You may find that having to work to someone else's idea and a set period will be just what you need. I don't know if this is true or not, but there is a story that Tolstoy had writer's block. So he took someone else's novel and began to rewrite it - as he went along, it ceased to bear any resemblance to the original book. It became "Anna Karenina". You never know, writing to someone else's suggestion might be just the thing to help you make the breakthrough.

I did this with someone else's screenplay once. Not going to say whose, but once upon a time, I read a script on here that was ok, but mostly sucked. Parts worked and other parts were either far out, bad, or I just didn't like them. I gave a review on it with a handful of suggestions to improve the original story, and then looked at it again. I started playing with it by tearing it apart and throwing out all the crap I hated. Then I reorganized the whole thing into the way I thought it should go (it's my exercise, who cares what the other guy's intent was?). Then I had to fill out some parts, combine some characters here and there, revise some key areas of the plot, and even surprise myself a few times. The final product is a script where the first review would be: "I opened this and saw how long it was, so I didn't read it. You need to make it shorter." It bears a passing resemblance to the source material, but since I rewrote it from the ground up, I would have to place both scripts in front of you and point out the similarities for you to see how they compare. It sits in my personal archive as a source of amusement, but I doubt anyone would ever pick it up because of its length. Good character piece though. Solid exercise in rewriting.

Oh, and I'm still intrigued by this (regarding the original OMC challenge thread this was split from), though I'm not sure I'll participate in it specifically. I'm kind of like "me" in that I would prefer to write something I can shoot at this point. Need a good premise though.

Interesting George. Brings up a question, do you consider the script yours? If a prod-co wanted to buy it would you put both names on it or just yours?  I'm sort of in a similar position regarding a script.

I've honestly given that a whole lot of thought. On the one hand, you can't copyright an idea, I used none of the original script (which is the main, copyrightable part), there are significant plot and character differences (the other copyrightable part), and there are enough other differences between the two that I could call the revision legally mine.

It boils down to a matter of conscience, really. We're all in the same boat just wanting some measure of a break, and honestly, I've been meaning to share my total rewrite with the original author for some time. Hence, after posting that above, I emailed it to him. In all fairness, if he had not posted his script for me to read, I would never have written the one I did.

So legally, I don't think I have to credit anything, but morally, I think I do. However, from a credit standpoint, since I wrote the final script and only based on his, it would be a "Based on" credit.

Quoted from George Willson So legally, I don't think I have to credit anything, but morally, I think I do. However, from a credit standpoint, since I wrote the final script and only based on his, it would be a "Based on" credit.

Based on or "Story By". It's a really tough call, but I agree that without the original script, you'd have had nothing, so it would be right to credit them in some form.

In this case, "Based on" would be more appropriate since there are significant story differences. A lot of what I didn't like had to do with the story. What survived were a handful of the basic situations and character traits. It was a springboard more than anything else.

Actually, this topic is becoming one that should probably stand on its own instead of derailing this thread with it. A split is in order...

EDIT: And split complete.

I remember reading in another thread about how George Clooney had rewritten a script (I can't remember the name) and even though he apparently had rewritten it completely, the Writers Guild still refused to give him a "written by" credit - he had to settle with "story by", if that at all - see I can't even remember that, maybe the original poster can remember.

So be careful, George.

I see no problem with it at all. You may, like Tolstoy, have started with somebody else's work, but the end result is yours, dialogue, characters, story.

"Anna Karenina" doesn't have a "based on" credit, nor does anyone think it any less a classic because it was inspired by someone else's book (now forgotten) - assuming this story is true, of course!

And I would point out that the greatest writer in history stole his plots left, right and centre - but no one says his plays are not his, or any less classics of literature, because he rewrote other people's work.

If you make it your own, it is your own.

Well, at the moment, the discussion is academic. We're talking about a script I wrote some three years ago that languishes on my hard drive as opposed to something I'm working to actively sell. I am curious about it though, since it came up. I mean, I would have to be more established before someone would pick up a 160 page drama from me, so it's not like I'm looking for an urgent answer here. I just figured it would be an interesting discussion.

And strictly speaking, most literature is based on something else. Shakespeare didn't write Romeo and Juliet either. This is the reason that you can't copyright an idea. The copyrightable parts of a screenplay are the finished script and the characters. I think the detailed plot is copyrightable as well, but that's about as far as it goes.

Like I said, legally, I don't believe I HAVE to do anything. But hey, we're all writers and we should help each other where we can.

Hey, I'd pick up a 160 page drama from you, George...but I'd drop it too. Hard.

Quoted from sniper Hey, I'd pick up a 160 page drama from you, George...but I'd drop it too. Hard.

I know.    That's another reason I never bothered posting it. Who the heck would read it? At 160 pages, it would make a mighty thump.

I read recently that you can't copyright characters either - I know that ideas, titles and character names are not copyrightable, but apparently characters themselves cannot be copyrighted either.

I understand there is a case in America right now that is all about a sequel to "Catcher in the Rye" based on this very fact.

It is only the physical work that is protected, not elements within it.

Not being a lawyer, I am not certain about this! (I shall have to look it up)

It's for another thread, but what Shakespeare (the greatest writer in history I mentioned) did and did not write is and will always be open to question - indeed, if he wrote any of them!

But Lear was adapted from someone else's play, as, I believe, was one of the Roman plays. Lear also has it's basis in Welsh myth (hence it is sometimes referred to as the great Welsh play).

Of course, in those days, there was no copyright, so he didn't have to worry!

I think the copyrightable aspects probably have to do with what's in the details. James Bond, for instance, is a character, and yet, I doubt any of us could write and present a James Bond piece without EON being all over us. He's just a character, and yet he is very copyrighted (although he could be trademarked instead, which is a whole other can of worms). I also know that Disney is working to keep their characters under their control since Walt Disney's death date is slipping away from them.

I'm sure there are some fine lines here that none of us understand. Me = not a lawyer either.

Quoted from Niles_Crane I read recently that you can't copyright characters either - I know that ideas, titles and character names are not copyrightable, but apparently characters themselves cannot be copyrighted either.

No, but they can be trademarked, can't they? If not, then George is writing the next James Bond movie.

Quoted from sniper No, but they can be trademarked, can't they? If not, then George is writing the next James Bond movie.

That's what I'm talking about!  

Found a very in-depth article online regarding this. Can't post the entire thing, but here is a snippet that may be of interest...

Quoted Text Other courts have adopted what is referred to as the "story being told" test. Some courts use this test by itself or sometimes in conjunction with the character delineation test when analyzing whether a fictional character deserves copyright protection. The story being told test was first used when a court determined that Dashiell Hammett's character, Sam Spade, in the novel The Maltese Falcon was not entitled to copyright protection. The court stated that the character Sam Spade was merely a vehicle for telling the story, rather than an essential part of the story itself, and therefore Sam Spade as a fictional character could not be protected under the copyright law.

The full article is at http://www.publaw.com/fiction.html

Quoted from George Willson That's another reason I never bothered posting it. Who the heck would read it? At 160 pages, it would make a mighty thump.

...I've read a 167 or so page drama by you, if I remember correctly.

How about this scenario. I wrote a short. Someone wanted to co-write that short into a feature. We tossed ideas back and forth for a long time, but we seem to have way too different work styles that this might not work out. I still want to write it because I like the story. If I write it, should I share credit? It was my short to begin with and nothing has been written yet. Just some ideas tossed back and forth.

Hey, I did a darn good job on that one... I had help from the greats to make that one good.

I would say (in my non-legal opinion) that since the original story is yours, the feature is yours as well. You may have tossed ideas around, but non of those ideas can be legally possessed by you or the other person. It sounds like it was yours to begin with, and it remains so since the other person bailed.

If you think that person made a significant contribution to the final product, credit will probably be totally up to you, especially if they never contributed a word to the script itself, which is the main moneymaker.

Quoted from Niles_Crane Found a very in-depth article online regarding this. Can't post the entire thing, but here is a snippet that may be of interest... The full article is at http://www.publaw.com/fiction.html

That's interesting that you bring that up. See, for the longest time, I had this story rattling around in my head about... Point is, it involved Sam Spade a lot and would've been impossible to do otherwise.

Maybe I'll get cracking on it, now. =)

Of course, as screenwriters, it is likely that we would in any case see our work rewritten by others anyway, whether we liked it or not, and could even end up having our contribution to the script removed.

I read once of a Hollywood blockbuster that had 16 writers, eight of whom received some kind of on screen credit! The writer of the original script was reduced to a "story by" credit!

In the UK a screenwriter told an interesting story. After his script, the first one to be produced, was accepted, the Director asked for various redraftings - he never wrote a word himself, just made suggestions. But on the end product, he was credited as co-writer. And whenever anyone spoke about it - and it was a successful film - it was always with the caveat that he was the writer/director of the movie. The actual writer was largely ignored.

Not surprisingly, the writer has said he will never again share a credit.

Quoted from Niles_Crane I read once of a Hollywood blockbuster that had 16 writers, eight of whom received some kind of on screen credit! The writer of the original script was reduced to a "story by" credit!

You could very easily be talking about either The Flintstones (3 dozen writers) or Last Action Hero (where the script deviated so much from the original that the two screenwriters of the original version got Story By). It makes sense though, because the original version of the script was awful, whereas I enjoyed the finished product.

Nobody can write my material better than myself... So, don't bother. That's what I say.

Quoted from Baltis. Nobody can write my material better than myself... So, don't bother. That's what I say.

It just isn't worth it is the real reason... Oh wait. Did I type that out loud?  

Quoted from George Willson It just isn't worth it is the real reason... Oh wait. Did I type that out loud?

A bad idea is easy to rework into your own good idea -- A great idea, however, shows the weakness of the writer.

Nice one, though.

Quoted from George Willson I did this with someone else's screenplay once. Not going to say whose, but once upon a time, I read a script on here that was ok, but mostly sucked. Parts worked and other parts were either far out, bad, or I just didn't like them. I gave a review on it with a handful of suggestions to improve the original story, and then looked at it again. I started playing with it by tearing it apart and throwing out all the crap I hated. Then I reorganized the whole thing into the way I thought it should go (it's my exercise, who cares what the other guy's intent was?). Then I had to fill out some parts, combine some characters here and there, revise some key areas of the plot, and even surprise myself a few times. The final product is a script where the first review would be: "I opened this and saw how long it was, so I didn't read it. You need to make it shorter." It bears a passing resemblance to the source material, but since I rewrote it from the ground up, I would have to place both scripts in front of you and point out the similarities for you to see how they compare. It sits in my personal archive as a source of amusement, but I doubt anyone would ever pick it up because of its length. Good character piece though. Solid exercise in rewriting. Oh, and I'm still intrigued by this (regarding the original OMC challenge thread this was split from), though I'm not sure I'll participate in it specifically. I'm kind of like "me" in that I would prefer to write something I can shoot at this point. Need a good premise though.

I was asked by a friend a few years ago to rewrite a horror feature my own way. He knew I hated horror as a genre and thought what would you do given this idea and I did something that I couldn't even eek out 40 pages. I had a beginning, end and all the deaths but no story.

A horror script by me is probably terrible compared to the already low standards the industry has regarding horror. I watched a horror movie the other night called "One Eyed Monster" look it up and ask me how bad it was watching a killer penis.

This brings up an interesting question. My script Wang is based off of Borat, well different character, same scenario. It's all done, and I'm about to post it So is it mine?

Based on what we know, it sounds like it's yours. You just used Borat for inspiration. You might get some "reminds me of..." comments, but that happens with everything.

Quoted from George Willson Based on what we know, it sounds like it's yours. You just used Borat for inspiration. You might get some "reminds me of..." comments, but that happens with everything.

Especially when you mention anything "pop culture-based". You'll never hear the end of it, but just get past it. =)

The "reminds me off..." comments are even worse when you write music. People invariably grasp at anything a new song could possibly remind them of. I've heard some seriously whacked comparisons to some of my music. Strangely, they're less critical of stories.

Quoted from George Willson The "reminds me off..." comments are even worse when you write music. People invariably grasp at anything a new song could possibly remind them of. I've heard some seriously whacked comparisons to some of my music. Strangely, they're less critical of stories.

Unless you're Vanilla Ice... =)

Anybody remember that li'l skirmish over "Ice, Ice, Baby"?

Ok, thanks guys.

Quoted from Niles_Crane I read once of a Hollywood blockbuster that had 16 writers, eight of whom received some kind of on screen credit! The writer of the original script was reduced to a "story by" credit!

That's too bad, I hear of that happening sometimes. When I do collaboration, I only do with another writer, no more,so exactly that doesn't happen.

Quoted from Aaron That's too bad, I hear of that happening sometimes. When I do collaboration, I only do with another writer, no more,so exactly that doesn't happen.

I don't think the 3 dozen on the Flintstones movies were necessarily collaborating on purpose. That would be a corporate built movie for cash, not one crafted with love. The fact that it had so many writers just showed how little devotion there was to the project or how dead set the producer(s) was on a specific story that a writer couldn't or wouldn't deliver.

That's hardly a model for how to collaborate.

Then again, unrequested rewrites happen in the industry all the time. The original writer of Halloween 3 had his name removed from the credits because he never wrote a horror sci-fi story and despised what they did with his script.

True, but 16 writers on one project does seem a little much

Quoted from George Willson I don't think the 3 dozen on the Flintstones movies were necessarily collaborating on purpose. That would be a corporate built movie for cash, not one crafted with love. The fact that it had so many writers just showed how little devotion there was to the project or how dead set the producer(s) was on a specific story that a writer couldn't or wouldn't deliver. That's hardly a model for how to collaborate. Then again, unrequested rewrites happen in the industry all the time. The original writer of Halloween 3 had his name removed from the credits because he never wrote a horror sci-fi story and despised what they did with his script.

Maybe so, that it wasn't crafted with love, but the fact that the original script came from Steven De Souza?

That just seems like an odd pairing. No wonder they went through so many writers when it originally comes from an '80s action writer.

Quoted from George Willson The original writer of Halloween 3 had his name removed from the credits because he never wrote a horror sci-fi story and despised what they did with his script.

The original writer was the late, great, Nigel Kneale - possibly the greatest British TV scriptwriter of all time, and certainly the man who laid the foundation for much that was to come.

Including me. When I was 14 they republished the scripts to his fantastic 1950s sf stories featuring Professor Quatermass. It was reading these that made me want to be a screenwriter.

When John Carpenter made "Prince of Darkness" he wrote it under as "Martin Quatermass" as a homage to Kneale's famous creation (both this film and his "Ghosts of Mars" draw on Kneale's stories for inspiration). Kneale's comment was - "With fans like him, I don't need enemies" - he never forgave him for rewriting his script for H3 into what he saw as a very standard horror story. I have always wondererd what the original must have been like. That's one script I'd like to see.

Wandered off topic a bit there!

It wasn't Carpenter that was responsible for the crap that was H3. That would be Mustapha Akkad. Carpenter didn't even want an H2.

FYI, I mentioned earlier that I emailed the original author of the script I razed and revived, and he had forgotten it was even out there, and was basically touched that I drew any inspiration from a script that he felt wasn't very good to begin with. It was a nice email.

so, I'm going to answer the title question.

if I wrote something and someone took my script and wrote something else out of it, I would be flattered. If that new script would get sold and made a ton of money. I think I'd want a taste of that pie...

Quoted from Grandma Bear so, I'm going to answer the title question. if I wrote something and someone took my script and wrote something else out of it, I would be flattered. If that new script would get sold and made a ton of money. I think I'd want a taste of that pie...

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought...

Quoted from George Willson It wasn't Carpenter that was responsible for the crap that was H3. That would be Mustapha Akkad. Carpenter didn't even want an H2.

Halloween 3 was, in theory, the best of the entire series if you look at originality and expansion.  Halloween 3 was my personal favorite after part 2 to be honest.

& John Carpenter stole the concept for Halloween from Bob Clark... Carpenter asked Clark if he'd ever consider doing a follow up to Black Christmas and he said no. Carpenter prodded him a bit and asked what if you did, tho... Clark responded with "I would have Billy escape from an institution of some sorts and have him return to the sorority on Halloween night to terrorize the girls"

Years later, some nearly 5 ... Halloween comes out with John Carpenters goofy ass behind the helm.

I said that because I know from experience, when money gets involved, people tend to change their tune...

Carpenter was producer on H3 and it was apparently his desire to work with Kneale - who had not done much film work (his biggest credit is the film version of "Look Back in Anger"), because of his admiration of his Quatermass scripts, that lead to an offer being made to Kneale to write a screenplay.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I said that because I know from experience, when money gets involved, people tend to change their tune...

That's a little problem I have involving a character and his name.

The other end of the spectrum is that they could be offended because you did it not because you liked what they had done but because you didn't like it and thought you could do better.

Quoted from sniper I remember reading in another thread about how George Clooney had rewritten a script (I can't remember the name) and even though he apparently had rewritten it completely, the Writers Guild still refused to give him a "written by" credit - he had to settle with "story by", if that at all - see I can't even remember that, maybe the original poster can remember. So be careful, George.

That was Leatherheads.

Quoted Text Clooney went financial core last fall, after the WGA decided 2-1 in a credit arbitration vote that only Duncan Brantley and Rick Reilly deserved screen credit on the picture that Universal opens today. Going fi-core means a member is still technically a member of the WGA, but has limited rights within the guild. Fi-core members have to pay dues and are covered by the health and pension plans. Once you elect to go fi-core, the decision is irreversible. "When your own union doesn't back what you've done, the only honorable thing to do is not participate," said Clooney, who stressed he made no attempt to exclude Brantley and Reilly. Clooney says he would have quit the WGA altogether if he could, but that would have prevented him from working on all WGA-covered productions. He says he wanted nothing more to do with the WGA but didn't want to be hampered in his ability in writing scripts. As for "Leatherheads," Clooney took a languishing 17-year old project and got a greenlight after personally giving the script a major overhaul that transformed it into a screwball comedy. He says he felt he'd written all but two of the film's scenes. While he agreed that Brantley and Reilly deserved first position credit for hatching the idea and characters, he was incensed enough by the WGA arbitration process to go financial core, which rendered him a dues-paying non-voting member.

I'd echo those that say anything that fires the imagination and sets a writer off has to be a good thing. As long as it's not blatant lifting then all's good in my book. No copying!

Of course, you would need to realise that the script was based on yours in the first place to demand recompense - and if the new writer didn't tell you, and it was significantly different (which is what we are talking about here), you might just think - oh, that's a bit like my old idea!

How many times have you seen a film or TV prog and said to yourself - that's just like so and so. I once wrote a script with a scene in it that I really liked. A few years later, watching Die Hard With a Vengeance, what do I see - almost exactly the same scene!

So unless you reveal your sources, then the originator would be none the wiser - and assuming you don't just steal the original script blind, I see no problem with it at all. You can find inspiration in anything - and what's the difference if it is a newspaper article, something someone says to you in the pub, or a script you read?

Quoted from George Willson It wasn't Carpenter that was responsible for the crap that was H3. That would be Mustapha Akkad. Carpenter didn't even want an H2.

H3 isn't as bad as what everyone makes it out to be.

But it's still not amazing either.

the best in the series is the original (followed by H4 imo).

Sorry for veering off topic, but I'll say that I did hear that story about Clooney.

Songwriters have done this forever.

Take a popular song and first change the lyrics for something original and then start to alter the melody, swap some chords around, add a bridge and alter the bassline maybe.

Hey presto a completely original song that follows the formula of a proven winner.

This is probably better known as re-working rather than re-writing,  it is seen as an accepted way to write a song and is taught as a method that can be used successfully.

I have often thought about trying it with a script, for instance take Die Hard and change the characters, locations and plot so indeed you do have a different script, but what you keep is the style, beat, rhythm etc... etc... of a winning script. i.e. so by comparing the two side by side each character goes through key challenges and reaches certain plot points at the same time but the stories are completely different.

I always thought it might be an interesting thing to try, Does it make sense?

Quoted from Murphy I have often thought about trying it with a script, for instance take Die Hard and change the characters, locations and plot so indeed you do have a different script, but what you keep is the style, beat, rhythm etc... etc... of a winning script. i.e. so by comparing the two side by side each character goes through key challenges and reaches certain plot points at the same time but the stories are completely different.

Wasn't that already done with Under Siege?

That's done with pretty much every movie that follows your basic three act structure.

So I've given this some thought, and I figure since I brought it up to begin with, I might as well tell everyone what I read to begin with and share my retake on it. The original script is You Don't Know Me by Jason Byram. It was posted back in April 06.

My tear down, rebuild, and rewrite was never posted on SS, but here's a link to it. I called it After Last Summer.

For some apples to apples comparisons between the two, his first scene on pages 1-2 occurs in my version from pages 15-18. His second scene on pages 2-3 roughly occurs from the bottom of page 13 to page 15 of mine. Skip a bunch of crap and the next bit that is even roughly incorporated from his is the bottom of page 10 to the top of 13 which very, very loosely matches up to between pages 1 to 13 of mine. What you'll find is that the similarity is very definitely there if you're looking for it, and I still had to look for it to share this much.

But the thing is, the further you get into story, the further the two depart from each other until you get to the end of his which doesn't even remotely match to any scene at the end of mine. He has a scene from page 97-101 that sort of matches up to a scene in mine from 135-140, but the setup leading into those two scenes is vastly different and while the characters of Dana and Liz end up in roughly the same position, the impact on their greater character development doesn't line up in the least.

They do both spend a good part of the denouement in the hospital where each character comes to terms with whatever their deal was, though where mine actually concludes at that point, his goes on and does a bunch more crap that annoyed me. So there you go. Now you can read and compare, if you're feeling particularly masochistic.