All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... 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?
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
Which would you choose, and why?
Sure, I'll be Skip Woods. I get paid like him, right?
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?
Let's just say my whole life is fluid right now. I'm not quite sure what the hell is going on. I'm in a mid-life crisis in my 30s.
For me, A is about getting control over your work, and taking enjoyment from the sense of achievement and control.
Whereas B is more about putting the audience before those very natural tendencies. Which is not to say one is somehow morally better than the other.
The reason I would choose B is not because I want plaudits, but being involved in film is a chance to make movies that touch people in the way that movies touch me.
Imagine being a part of The Dark Knight and knowing you've made something that people care about so deeply, versus making a movie like Transformers, where no one really enjoys it, and yes it's your vision, but are you really touching people in a meaningful way, you know.
That's the basic philosophical conundrum I was trying to get at
Like everyone else, I'd take pretty much any option that meant I got to write!
For me, A is about getting control over your work, and taking enjoyment from the sense of achievement and control.
Whereas B is more about putting the audience before those very natural tendencies. Which is not to say one is somehow morally better than the other.
The reason I would choose B is not because I want plaudits, but being involved in film is a chance to make movies that touch people in the way that movies touch me.
Imagine being a part of The Dark Knight and knowing you've made something that people care about so deeply, versus making a movie like Transformers, where no one really enjoys it, and yes it's your vision, but are you really touching people in a meaningful way, you know.
That's the basic philosophical conundrum I was trying to get at
Like everyone else, I'd take pretty much any option that meant I got to write!
I think this is a highly romanticised vision tbh.
The reality is that it's more like a factory job. You'd come in, write some stuff, then leave. Years later the film comes out, and the stuff you wrote may or may not be on the cutting room floor.
You're only doing the job to pay the bills and so your wife doesn't leave you. Plus, maybe one day you'll actually get to see something you do care about, one of your own stories, get made... if you pay enough dues. You don't care about Batman or any other silly comic book character.
Anything you did write that made it in to the film would be claimed by each and every other writer that worked on the film, but you wouldn't really care as none of you get credit anyway.. That all goes to the director and actors and the people who invented the characters in the first place.
In the time it took to shoot, edit and release the film, you'd have worked on dozens of other gigs and all but forgotten it. Your only goal would be to lever that glory to get your own stuff made, or at least to get another job to keep paying the bills.
I don't see that an uncredited, minor rewrite on a franchise has some profound meaning.
The reality is that it's more like a factory job. You'd come in, write some stuff, then leave. Years later the film comes out, and the stuff you wrote may or may not be on the cutting room floor.
You're only doing the job to pay the bills and so your wife doesn't leave you. Plus, maybe one day you'll actually get to see something you do care about, one of your own stories, get made... if you pay enough dues. You don't care about Batman or any other silly comic book character.
Anything you did write that made it in to the film would be claimed by each and every other writer that worked on the film, but you wouldn't really care as none of you get credit anyway.. That all goes to the director and actors and the people who invented the characters in the first place.
In the time it took to shoot, edit and release the film, you'd have worked on dozens of other gigs and all but forgotten it. Your only goal would be to lever that glory to get your own stuff made, or at least to get another job to keep paying the bills.
I don't see that an uncredited, minor rewrite on a franchise has some profound meaning.
It's definitely a fluffly, romanticised take on the industry; really meant mainly as a philosphical musing more than hardnosed take (although i don't disagree with your take).
Having worked production crew for a good few years (ranging from $200m+ productions to <£1m), the one thing you learn quickly is how cynical and sycophantic the industry is. It's an industry where beautiful things happen on screen, but you have to learn to navigate this by balancing the fluffy and the hardnosed. Part of the reason I chose to leave the industry (at least in the capacity of crew) is that it's a whole load of shit not commensurate with great reward. Crew (unless a specified creative department) is likely to get you to 1st AD or maybe PM after years and years of dealing with shitty people and patchy pay. No one grows up wanting to be a 1st AD or production manager, you know.
So with all that in mind, it's important to really understand the motivation for getting in, as this helps you to decide if it's all worth it, hence the binary choice of A & B. Going granular obviously necessary ultimately, but I think it's important to understand the foundational motivation before, as flawed and fluffy as the choices are!
Anyway, it's a good topic to chew the breeze on, I think.
Last time I worked on a big pic was one of the Marvel movies. ToI spent about twelve hours a day up a ladder on my own, occasionally turning on a light and I decided that was my time to bow out. Not that there was anything particularly wrong with it all, I just thought... meh..
I still turn up on sets sometimes if mates are working on something interesting..Game of Thrones or whatever, and I recently popped over to see some 'secret' Hbo series being filmed because a friend of mine was responsible for building an entire submarine as a set, but the novelty of the big movies, even Star Wars, has largely gone for me.
I'm glad I've done it though I've seen some of the best actors and directors up close and seen what the level is.
My original motivation was to make films with a group of friends, being creative, having fun and eventually getting really good, but that never happened.
What demotivates me these days is the sheer saturation of content, and the related paucity of the independent market. The days of making a film, then selling it are largely gone, now you've got to be a marketing expert alongside everything else. When I'm writing a script there's a large part of me being resistant as I'm thinking, do I really want to go through the rigmarole of pre-production, production, directing, editing and then get to the point where the real work begins and you've got to run an entire marketing campaign to get noticed?
The answer is still yes, but an increasingly large part of me is thinking, just write prose instead.
Last time I worked on a big pic was one of the Marvel movies. ToI spent about twelve hours a day up a ladder on my own, occasionally turning on a light and I decided that was my time to bow out. Not that there was anything particularly wrong with it all, I just thought... meh..
I still turn up on sets sometimes if mates are working on something interesting..Game of Thrones or whatever, and I recently popped over to see some 'secret' Hbo series being filmed because a friend of mine was responsible for building an entire submarine as a set, but the novelty of the big movies, even Star Wars, has largely gone for me.
I'm glad I've done it though I've seen some of the best actors and directors up close and seen what the level is.
My original motivation was to make films with a group of friends, being creative, having fun and eventually getting really good, but that never happened.
What demotivates me these days is the sheer saturation of content, and the related paucity of the independent market. The days of making a film, then selling it are largely gone, now you've got to be a marketing expert alongside everything else. When I'm writing a script there's a large part of me being resistant as I'm thinking, do I really want to go through the rigmarole of pre-production, production, directing, editing and then get to the point where the real work begins and you've got to run an entire marketing campaign to get noticed?
The answer is still yes, but an increasingly large part of me is thinking, just write prose instead.
Amen.
Got in for similar reasons myself, and that sense of the initial lure of being on set with well-known industry people fades pretty swiftly.
Agreed on content. Looking at the UK landscape, the Pinewoods, Sheppertons, etc are full of Hollywood making their product on the cheap, and then the money from a BBC, Film 4, etc is tied up in cliques, and increasingly in diversity targets. That leaves you having to master marketing to break through, as you say. I would say the relatively cheap costs to film on Canons, Reds, and even iPhones does help level the playing field to a degree, but you're still stuck with having to fight your way through that crowded market. Agreed that the filmmaker role has evolved significantly in past 10-15 years. Some good, some bad outcomes there.
RE: saturation; it's become impossible to effectively track content, especially as now we see Apple, Netflix, Prime all adding to the increased output from traditional tv and film players. There does seem a need to have a product that indexes that content for you, and aids you in choosing and ordering what you want to watch.
Pages: 
Author
Which would you rather?
Logged
Locked Board