I tend towards the philosophical conundrums as I find them fun, but also illuminating in determining movtivation and desire underpinning my decision making and dream making.

Would you rather:

a) Be a well-known screenwriter who gets to work consistently with produced credits that fully reflect your vision, but are always poorly received by critics and audiences alike, or;
b) Be an anonymous writer who only gets paid work on commission for rewrites, meaning your contribution is only ever as part of a patchwork of many writers' visions, however, the critical and audience reception is always uniformly positive.

You'd receive similar renumeration.

Which would you choose, and why?

A without a doubt.


I couldn't care less about the opinions of the unwashed masses or hacks on tea boy wages.

Ultimately, if you're repeatedly seeing your own unique vision and artistic expression being realised, and you're getting paid for it, then that's great. Someone out there likes your stuff, so you can be true to yourself and still make a living.

I think A is a no-brainer. Rick's already provided a fine explanation for it. I'll withhold my caveats in the interest of honoring the point of the discussion.

That said, B is nothing to sniff at on its own merits. Would make a very comfortable day job to say the least.

Please do put the caveats in, James. Curious to hear those. I have some thinking on both positions that I’ll chuck out as the discussion progresses (essentially pros and cons), but want to hear thoughts prior that.

Rick, you literally got a proper LOL in real life for tea boy wages. Great stuff.

I’d be happy with A as well. The only time the writer is going to get publicly skewered for a produced film is when the writer’s name shows up with about four different titles in the opening credits (“Written, produced, directed, and starring....”)

Be a well-known screenwriter who gets to work consistently with produced credits that fully reflect your vision, but are always poorly received by critics and audiences alike

If they're poorly received also by audiences I can't imagine the writer would remain in demand. Am I missing something? If they were critically not well received but audiences loved them that'd be fine by me. Somewhere down the line I'd be betting the critics would eventually cop on.

I'd be happy with B as well though. As long as I didn't hate what I was writing and it didn't go against the grain. A jobbing writer getting paid well without the fame? Nothing to sneeze at imho. Better than working at something dreary day in day out. Modest house with a picket fence, a dog, a pool in the backyard, and never having to worry about bills? Fine by me. I don't need acceptance speeches and gold plated statues on the mantel.

Remuneration. I know, sounds odd, right?

Can we say none of the above?????

Quoted from Andrew Please do put the caveats in, James. Curious to hear those.

I don't have much. I think being able to successfully execute your creative vision and make a living doing it is essentially the end of the journey. You've won. If people hate it, what can you really do if you're being yourself? Not be yourself? I can't see that working out.

I'd throw two things out as caveats. First is that I can't say for certain that I wouldn't be affected by consistent negative criticism. I don't consider myself thick-skinned at all. I've received reviews in the past for some of my scripts that have hit me pretty hard, but I've done what I've had to do to keep going and tried my best not to get defensive or discard useful criticism just because it doesn't make me feel good. I'm actually pretty proud of the way I've conducted myself in this regard, but I do have to wonder how much I could really take faced with wave after never-ending wave of rejection. If I ever were in a position where there'd be that much coverage of my creative work, I think I'd probably have to avoid it entirely to stay on track (that is to say, reviews, articles, comments on the Internet, etc.).

Secondly, there're certain criticisms that would mean more than others. I think I could weather most of them except if my scripts were panned for being stupid, cringey, incompetent, or somewhere adjacent to those realms. Like I'd hate to wake up one day and realize I'm M. Night Shyamalan or something. He seems like he's really trying to make films that are moody, suspenseful, thought-provoking, etc. (and they probably turn out the way he intends them to), but more often than not, they're received as silly, awkward, and unintentionally comedic. I mean, to me, that's a very unenviable position to be in, even if you're successful, vs. writing scripts, say, intended to be low-brow trash that are criticized for being low-brow trash.

That said, I'm simply trying to explore the caveats that come to mind since you asked. I don't feel particularly hung up on any of them. Scenario A seems like a win to me, especially since it's kind of implied you'd have to have some people who love your work to be able to continue working.

Beyond that, negative criticism is part of the game. Not everyone is going to like what you do. It is what it is. Something of a silver lining is that some of those people will be full of shit and not worth listening to anyway.

Finally, I'd be remiss not to mention one of my favorite directors, Lars von Trier. Dude is absolutely reviled by critics and audiences. It's part of the fun when it comes to him honestly. Some people say you oughta have a couple of haters.

Quoted from eldave1 Can we say none of the above?????

Good call. Neither is desirable. Although I still gotta admit B could make for a decent day job.

Quoted from eldave1 Can we say none of the above?????

Not if you want to keep your spleen.

Quoted from Andrew Not if you want to keep your spleen.

B!

Quoted from eldave1 B!

Hahaha!

The clip for anyone who isn't familiar with it.

American Psycho has to be in the top 50 of all-time, surely!

I don't think either one is very appealing, but if I had to choose one I'd go A simply because, well, I'm getting paid, which is great. But at least I'm working on my own vision and being true to myself as a writer. I mean, so what if everyone hates it? Always. Again, at the end of the day I'm making a living, taking care of things, and I always have that hope that one day I'll write something that somebody likes. But hey, who cares, I'm still getting paid!

Option B. There's not a whole lot of me in there. It seems tedious. Have to be communicating with other writers, sharing notes and stuff. Lots of back and forth. It all seems like a great big hassle for a few good reviews.

Quoted from SAC ... Option B. There's not a whole lot of me in there. It seems tedious. Have to be communicating with other writers, sharing notes and stuff. Lots of back and forth. It all seems like a great big hassle for a few good reviews.

Under Andrew's hypothetical scenario you do get paid both ways. Ah, okay, commission only for B.
Steve, you just made me realise how relentlessly boring and aggravating B could be.  

What's C?

P.S. Andrew, I notice you're still in NY. What are you up to there lately?