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�m torn on this one. On the one hand, you really can�t judge a writer by a draft in development. It�s pointless. Things get bounced around and so many people make suggestions. From the outside, you just can�t tell why a script is the way it is at any given point.
On the other hand, something stinks about the whole issue. I can�t get past the question of where these scripts come from in the first place. The overwhelming majority of leaked scripts simply must come from people who are on the inside of the project. I don�t see how the studios could be so helpless to stop it if they really wanted to. I can think of ways it could be minimized greatly if studios were really interested in stopping it. Their ineffectiveness is, in my mind, revealing.
Either way, though, you�re right. It�s best just not to get involved with it.
Breanne
You make some good points. I understand Pia's point and it's morally correct I think, from the point of view that we are all writers and we wouldn't want our unfinished work being ripped apart until it's finished.
It's nevertheless interesting to read the scripts. Also I'm not really sure it makes much of a difference to audiences. The people who read these things are a tiny fraction of the audience and no-one really listens to people on the internet do they? People have such wildly different opinions on things, literally the polar opposites over even the slightest thing, that people like to make their own minds up.
Initial reports on Avatar in the media were trying to make out as though it was going to be a huge flop. They seemed to have it in for the film and we saw how audiences reacted to it.
Shelton made a great point on the Simplyscript Radio that he's never not watched a film just because he didn't like the script. I'm the same. Even if I didn't enjoy the script, it's interesting to me to watch the film to see how they tried to improve it or how it translated to the screen. It actually makes it fun to watch either way. If it's still bad you get the sense of satisfaction that you were right all along and if it is better you get a pleasant surprise and a renewed appreciation of how the collaborative process can improve things.
You also raise a great point about it being the studioes who are letting them out. That's definitely the case. I started thinking about making films in 2004, whilst I was doing an acting course in LA. One of my friends there was a PA for a Producer at Sony and he would bring scripts that were in development or just been bought back to the flats all the time.
I remember him bringing a script for what turned out to be Hostage and we sat and read it by the pool.
He was reading them like we do to see what they wanted, to work on his own stuff and I'd do the same. You read these things and think, "I could do better than that". We all do.
He wasn't doing this surreptitiously and smuggling them out, they were just lying around the office and he'd take them, then bring them back. The Producer was perfectly happy for him to have them, so it's not like they are under lock and key.
It works for them both ways. If it's great, brilliant free-marketing, if it's not so well received they get the time to change things round.
...we are all writers and we wouldn't want our unfinished work being ripped apart until it's finished.
But isn't the work - from the writer's point of view - finished? When the writer turns the script over to the producer we must assume that that is his or hers final draft - at that point in time.
Though I can't rule it out, I seriously doubt that any paid writer would turn a script over to a producer and say "Here ya go. I'm not happy with it. The shit needs a lot of work..."
Yes, the producer, the director or even the actors may then want to change this or that and that will lead to a new draft (another final draft from the writer's point of view) but the original draft is still the writer's vision of the story and I think it's perfectly fair to critique it for what it is as long as you bear in mind that you're critiqueing the script (or how it looked at a certain point in time) and not the finished movie.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
But isn't the work - from the writer's point of view - finished? When the writer turns the script over to the producer we must assume that that is his or hers final draft - at that point in time.
If it were a novel, I would say yes, but a movie is different. Some scripts may well be finished at the time they're handed over, but others may have some minor gaps on the visual side of things. The writers knows these things are there, but he also knows that they're things the producer or director would fill out anyway. Remember that a lot of what we do leaves a lot of room for interpretation. We say the house is white, but we don't describe the flower boxes out front unless they're essential to the story. We might say "They fight" and hit some high points, but we don't go into detail about it.
I had one where I knew the guy wanted to run his people all over a house and try as I might, the dude never gave me a floor plan to work with, so I gave him a paragraph describing what needed to happen and where everyone needed to end up. It's boring as hell to read on the page, but he knew what he needed to do with it. MY part -- the story -- was finished. HIS part -- the visuals -- were not.
So whether the script is done or not depends on why it's written. The story should be finished, though.
And regardless of who heads up the script club discussions, I can mod it (which I really should since they occur on my part of the world). I loved participating in the discussions and such. It is hard to head it up because one part of you wants to control the discussion, but another wants to let them go freely to see where they end up. Trouble is they often fizzle out before the week is out. I suppose that's fine, but sometimes, you want it to go further.
One script that might be interesting to see others' thoughts on is the original draft of Labyrinth. This one would be interesting because the first draft is a whole lot more Monty Python than the final. Remember that Labyrinth was written by Terry Jones of the Monty Python troupe. Even more shades of Holy Grail than survived the final cut. And it appears that Labyrinth is MIA, but I have a copy saved...
I agree, Rob. The writer is responsible for the script. A whole shit load of people are responsible for the film. They're two different things. Hence we have situations where writers get annoyed with what the directors have done with "their" script. So yes, it's fair to judge a script as is. Not on how the film turns out. This is also why films that win best screenplay awards don't always win best picture awards, and vice versa.
Excellent points. I guess I should clear up what I mean by not getting involved in it. I think it’s perfectly fine to read scripts in development for insights into the process. I just think it’s pointless to review or critique them publicly because there are numerous reasons why they may not be perfect, some beyond the writer’s control.
The scripts are certainly interesting to read. With something like “I Want To _____ Your Sister,” I think we have one situation. This is a spec script that sold. Of course we’d all like to know why it sold, but without input from the people who purchased it, we can only speculate.
With something like “Countdown,” we have a situation where the script is in development. I think it was good to look at because we could actually tell where more than one writer had had a hand in it. It became sort of choppy as a result. But it was in development and hadn’t been polished. We can study it for personal benefit but judging the writer is, in my mind, pointless and unfair. Looking back, and knowing what I do now, I think I was wrong about a lot of things.
I think if we (we in general, not you and I specifically) had kept our heads -- and if we all were more knowledgeable at the time -- we could have looked at the scripts more objectively and understood what was really going on. As it was, we became very unfairly critical of the writers -- in my opinion.
We can’t help but look at them. But to publicly review them, I think, is counterproductive unless you view them within the context of the process the script is going through.
Script Club I: The Clean Up Crew Script Club II: Tis The Season Script Club III: Fade To White Script Club IV: Countdown Script Club V: I Want To _____ Your Sister Script Club VI: Jagged Script Club VII: Demon Beach Script Club VIII: The Strangers Script Club IX: Coffee & Inspiration Script Club X: Angels & Demons Script Club XI: Killing on Carnival Row
As for Script Club XII, what about “Armored?” That’s a script that’s already been produced and released to theaters and was also the first-time sale for the writer.
I read about that story. If I remember rightly (correct me if I'm wrong) the writer had no agent, no real writing history - he was, to paraphrase his own words, just some schmuck with a script, and yet he sold to a real studio and I think Lawrence Fishbourne was in the finished movie (among others).
A story we can all relate and aspire to...'Armored' has my vote.