Ok, so it appears we're back to the idea that because a Producer spends "the most time" on a film, they are the one who should ultimately decide what it's going to be and how it's going to play out...is that what you're saying here?

Are you also saying that the Producer is the one who should be held responsible for the quality of the project?

Or am I misinterpreting what it is you guys are even attempting to argue about?

Quoted from Dreamscale Ok, so it appears we're back to the idea that because a Producer spends "the most time" on a film, they are the one who should ultimately decide what it's going to be and how it's going to play out...is that what you're saying here? Are you also saying that the Producer is the one who should be held responsible for the quality of the project? Or am I misinterpreting what it is you guys are even attempting to argue about?

For studio films there are so many moving parts on essentially a custom project that not all the responsibility can be laid at the the foot of one person.

The actors could have flubbed a whole take and the editor has to make do with what they have.
Or budget was already stretched thin and whatever hole-filler pickups just couldn't get get shot.
Or MPAA demanded some cut that there was no hole-filler for.
Or the distributor demanded some edit.
Or the director demanded something.
Or a financier demanded something.

Car, plane, and ship manufacturers cant get everything right even when they're pumping out multiple copies of a single product - and - they get to have recalls and fix-its, whereas films... pretty much all you get is a single "hope they like it" debut.


With independent films the variables are fewer, but then again, there are fewer people scouring over a generally thinner budgeted project/product to catch mistakes.
More control/less control sort of thing.


There are so many shenanigans behind closed doors that even if you began citing specific films there's little way that you could scene-for-scene compare the end product with the original or last known screenplay and point out "THERE! THERE'S THE PROBLEM! AND THERE'S ANOTHER ONE! AND ANOTHER!" and then find the true reason the film sucked or had problems with it.


But generally speaking, the screenplay is no different than a house's blue prints.
What some person fabricated on paper and what the homeowner or developer want to change on site because they're paying for it are two different things.

What you read or what you see?

What you see...every time.

This "discussion" veered way off course last night, as things of this nature always do.

I'm sorry, but I can't just let this die.

Not only do I think, but I know my original comments, which were given as a response to feedback on another thread, were completely taken out of context and somehow, even taken personally.

So, let me be 100% clear - this has nothing to do with me or anyone else on this site, or anyone even reading these comments.  Period.  OK?  OK, cool.

So, Rick has now jumped in and very simply stated that readers should base every script they read by what they envision, vs. what the writer actually wrote and envisioned.

And I have to once again wholeheartedly disagree (but remember, this is not aimed at Rick or anyone else).

The problem with this philosophy, IMO,  is that anyone who does read this way, isn't really even reading or giving the script a chance.  Not giving the writer his due by reading in or envisioning something else completely.

And what it really comes down to is this type of reader (or these all knowing Producers) are basically saying that they know better, they're a better writer, and they can actually somehow even see through horrendously written, plotted, conceived scripts, and make them into beautiful films, because they have this special gift of some kind.

It amazes me how these peeps can do this so quickly and easily, because we're talking about 1 quick read, knowing damn well that some of the scripts may have been the culmination of many months of planning and writing.

I'm sure, as usual, I'm the one who's missing the point somehow, but I just don't know how.

Stephen King said once, that he prefer books over films because films are very limiting. All you get it 24 still pictures per second and you are stuck with those. Books on the other hand are different because each reader will imagine/envision the story differently.  He also don't like to watch films that have been made out of his stories, because they are seldom even near how he pictured the story while writing them.

What I'm trying to say, Jeff, is that whoever decides to take their time, money and effort to make a film out of a script, will make it the way they envision it. If that's not how the writer saw the story, then that's too bad. And if the writer insists on the film being made to his vision then he probably have to produce that film himself.  That is all.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Stephen King said once, that he prefer books over films because films are very limiting. All you get it 24 still pictures per second and you are stuck with those. Books on the other hand are different because each reader will imagine/envision the story differently.  He also don't like to watch films that have been made out of his stories, because they are seldom even near how he pictured the story while writing them. What I'm trying to say, Jeff, is that whoever decides to take their time, money and effort to make a film out of a script, will make it the way they envision it. If that's not how the writer saw the story, then that's too bad. And if the writer insists on the film being made to his vision then he probably have to produce that film himself.  That is all.

Argh!!  I'm wondering if my baldness isn't actually caused by male pattern baldness, but my subconsciously pulling out my hairs in frustration?

Pia, this is again, nothing to do with my comments or this discussion.

OK, we agree a Producer and director can make a movie any way they want to, based on any script they choose to use/buy/whatever.  We're good there.  No reason to bring it up again.

My original comments had to do with reading a script as it's written.  If one wants to read it through a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th and begin to deviate from obvious mistakes or poor plotting, that's fine.  That's what feedback is all about. And the best kind of feedback is not only pointing out what's wrong, but also why it's wrong and how to fix it.

Before anyone can come up with their own ideas on a script, they have to first know and read what the original writer's ideas are, and that can't take place unless you read the script as frickin' written.

Make any sense?

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, we agree a Producer and director can make a movie any way they want to, based on any script they choose to use/buy/whatever.  We're good there.  No reason to bring it up again.

At least we've got that sorted.  

Thing is...just as it takes a woman and a man(or it used to) to make a child....it takes writer and producer to make a movie. Without both, it is like an unfertilized egg that will never hatch...you can hard boil it....color it...even play egg toss....

....so we write....they produce.... and if we aren't willing to let go of it at some point an let it evolve into a movie ...it'll never do us much good.

Some wait on that million dollars. Give me a grand...I'm cool. I don't need much to be happy doing something I love.

Jeff,

Ultimately, to me, a script is the first process in the creation of a film.

It's not a short story or a novel, designed to be published. It is a blueprint or a suggestion for a movie.

It's like the writer is saying "I think this would make a good Movie...what do you think?" and that's how I judge it...would this make a good film?

That's why formatting and things like that aren't as much as an issue for me when I read a script (I'm not saying they are not important), I'm sort of watching the film on a TV screen to see how it plays out and if it works as a slice of cinema.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I'm sort of watching the film on a TV screen to see how it plays out and if it works as a slice of cinema.

OK, now we're getting somewhere.  Thank you, Rick.  So, hopefully, you're saying that "sort of watching the film on a TV screen to see how it plays out" as written, right?

Or are reading in and making changes as you read, based on errors or poor construction, dialogue, characters, whatever, making assumptions on unclear writing, etc?

If you're doing the first, we're in agreement.  If you're doing the latter, we're in disagreement (on the "correct" way to read a script).

I do a bit of both, I suppose.

I read what's there initially. Then I'll filter it through a look at how it could be.

I have a hierarchy of things that I consider important. It's purely subjective.

Somewhere near the top would be that the premise of the story is enticing and interesting. Somewhere near the bottom would be formatting.

Sometimes you come across a script that isn't brilliantly written, but is full of interesting ideas and I'll usually prefer that to a very well written script that has nothing new or interesting.

I do certainly look at how much "potential" something has, as well as what state it's currently in.

Jeff, I've decided to give you 10 million dollars to make a film. Ok?

One stipulation: you cannot use your own script. You must find one written by someone else.

You can make whatever changes you want to the story. But it must be originally someone else's script.

You'll get very limited distribution and advertising budget, so the film better sell itself.

I'll let you keep 25% of the profit on the script. And if it really makes money, I'll invest again with you to make another film, maybe more money this time, once you've proven you're a good investment.

So now you can begin the process of searching for a script, a film concept, a writer. However you wish to proceed.

You probably only get one shot at this in your life, so you better make sure the premise works. Good luck!

Oh, and I hope you'll accept a check.

Kevin  

I'm not a Producer and I'm not a Director.

BUT...here's where the problem comes in.

These Producers aren't writers either, yet they appear to want to be, so apparently, they take a script (that may or may not be any good, because they don't know or realize what constitutes a good script) and turn it into their own script, and, the results are usually very poor, as we witness each week at the metroplexes across the nation.

To make matters much worse, the vast majority of the central core concepts even suck.

So, I guess I'll just take the money and run for the hills.  

I guess thing that spawned this whole argument was because the author left out one minor detail. He forgot to put his pants on? In a script written in a week?

Come on, Jeff.

I definitely think it's what you see. Why write in this format unless your goal is to see it on film?

James

Let's take another approach. Jeff, while I am transferring funds from my offshore account for your 10 million dollar feature. In the meantime, I'll send you 30K and a case of fine Jaeger in order to produce one of these OWC scripts.

Same stipulation: can't be your own.

And so you won't play favorites, I'm gonna give Ray 30 k too, and whoever makes the best short will get the 10 mil for the feature.

How will you pick your script? Will you look for the concept you think will make the best film, or will you judge which script is the best written and formatted?

To be sure, the writing matters, because once you choose the script, you may want the writer to keep working with you on the project, so you're taking into consideration all these things.

So they all matter. But under the pressure of having to select what will make a good film, it might change your priority somewhat. This is why writing for a writer is very different than writing for a producer.

Just like getting drunk on Jaeger is different than getting wasted on wine.