Well that was kinda all over the place, but you touched upon a quote in the beginning of your post which I would like to comment on:

"Agents and studios want the same thing--a writer with universal appeal.  You need to convince them that you're just such a writer.  What does that mean?  It means that your work will sell to a mass audience.  It entices the 20 year old college student as well as her 50 year old parents.  It speaks to the human condition."

First of all, I might as well just say that, IMO, the notion of setting out to make a product that appeals to EVERYONE is extremely detrimental to cinema, and I might even call it the very defining concept of the evils of modern Hollywood. More often than not it speaks to the absolute lowest common denominator, sacrificing tone, direction and meaning for a broad herd of idiots salivating over the same fart-joke by Eddie Muphy in a fat-suit.

"You know what's funny? A man dressed in women's clothing."

- Family Guy. A show that would've never come about if everyone thought the way your book advocates. The clue is in the title. Its market is dummies.

Secondly, most screenwriting books deal with breaking into Hollywood, and while that surely is desirable, it's certainly not the only mode of publishing or production. Your inital gripe in the thread was that scripts you felt were poor were given great reviews and vice versa, which, emphasized by your thumbs up to "License to Wed", is a matter of personal taste.

You can't possibly argue that we should solely judge a script on how broad an audience it's geared towards? Or how well we feel a Hollywood agent would grade it? I don't know about you, but I want to know what YOU like about my writing, not Peter Dragon by proxy.

It's getting early here. So good morning.

Death Monkey,

You've hurt my feelings.  So what?-- That I read "Screenwriting for Dummies..."

"A dummie!  He called me a dummie.

Good fun!  Ok I'm teasing, but...

You know what?  I do argue that we judge a script on its broad appeal.  But I'll qualify that to say that we don't judge a script "solely" on its broad appeal.  If that were the case, my last story wouldn't have made it through the editor's slush.

But seriously, I'm published, and I'm not telling my secret identity.

I've worked with editors who don't think I'm a dummie.  So put your insults to bed.

I've worked hard to get to the tiny place I'm at.  And it's menial.

This is a thread about the struggle writers have to remain true to themselves at the same time as fitting in with the market.

It's not about subtle insults like the one you just generated: "Well, that was kinda all over the place..."

Maybe you can pick on others, but I'm gonna be honest: I don't like your tone.  

Still, if you came crawling to my door for some bread and water, I'd feed you a warm dinner because I must have been where you are at some point in my many lives; I don't have the authority or the right karma to criticize and after all, you're my brother.

Sandra

Good for you that you are published, it isn't easy. But that isn't necessarily a merit of quality or talent in this world of ours. Far from it actually. But I'm not here to knock you down or anything. I don't know you. I'm not sure I've even read anything of yours. But having worked with editors who love and subscribe to your philosophy certainly doesn't negate the fact that I don't.

It's not an insult or a pun to say that your post was all over the place, because it was. You touched upon a great many things and I just wanted to direct attention towards what I thought was at the core of this debate. If you took offense I'm sorry, it certainly wasn't my intention.

You don't have to like my tone, we don't have to be friends, but honestly I think it's somewhat of a cheapshot  to carve me out as some kind of bully who "picks" on you, because I challenge the conventions of your craft. There's no subtextual vitriol in my post, regardless of what you might think.

But you know what? I take offense too. I take offense to your irrelevant parable about  brotherly love, your pity and patronizing altruism. You say you don't have the authority to criticize me but what else is this, if not a figurative head-shaking and a heavy sigh? Is there not a "one day you'll learn" implied? This kind of smugness, the harmless PG-kind, to me, is so much more insidious than an honest four-letter word and an exclamation mark.

Tone is not the problem. Meaning is. And that's my objection.

I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye, but I actually made a cohesive argument for my case, the tenets of which you never quoted. Instead you focused on the "subtle insults" you claim this thread is not about.

My biggest question with this thread is....

"What does everyone want to accomplish as a writer?"

Seems to me that there are some people who want to make money, and some who are all about artistic integrity, but truth be told, why can't there be a combination of both?

I've been able to work on a couple assignments so far in my career, and I can honestly say that I haven't done anything just for the sake of a paycheck.  There's been something in each of the projects that I felt could make it work, and I've done my best to bring it out.  Sometimes, it's a little harder than others, but I get it there and I can feel a sense of accomplishment over it.

I appreciate a good portion of the work that the artists DM mentioned earlier have put out, but I have no ambition to be like them.  I'm just a writer, and I have no desire to direct.

Also, I've seen talk about what Hollywood does with writers on a daily basis.  Hollywood.  Nobody here, as far as I can tell, is working in Hollywood at the moment, and the odds that even 1% of the registered members on the board will is extremely high.  

The chances of selling a script to a studio are the same as using the cost to copy a script to buy lottery tickets and then winning.

And lastly, what we write and post here is all spec.  Something we think is good, that we'd like to see get made, and hopefully a producer does too.  

I've never written a script for an idea that I didn't think was all that great but figured it would get picked up so I did it anyway, and I've certainly never tried to please everybody.  There's only one person on here that I've seen attempt that and they ruined their work in the process.

Anyway, I'm rambling.  The main issue here is...

"What do you want to accomplish as a writer?"

Me?  I'd like to be able to write full time with a setup similar to Joe Eszterhas, a nice combination of assignments and spec work.  I don't need nor want his high profile though, since relative anonymity is one of the main things that attracts me to writing.

No issue with the million dollar bidding wars, but just enough to get by is alright by me.

I think there can be a combination of both. Like I mentioned, I don't mind the John Sayles approach. Whore yourself out to afford the films you really wanna do is to me a compromise I could live with. I'm not so high and mighty that I can't see the pragmatics in that, and I'd be willing to live in the real world for just a short while if it meant I could get one of MY movies on screen.

The thing I object to, personally, is if money is all there is. Money is means, not the destination for me. I want money so I can spend it on doing what I love, and what I love is movies. It's that simple for me.

I agree with Mike about the low-profile. I don't want fame, I don't want my face to be recognizable. My name and my work, sure, but I like how a writer enjoys relative anonymity.

Quoted from Takeshi That's the beauty of the OWC, Wes. With the names not being attached people are more likely to judge the work on its merits, instead basing their comments on who wrote it and how much weight they carry on this site. Perhaps every script that gets submitted should be posted without the author's name for the first week or so. As for the target audience stuff; if I catch myself trying to make one of my characters socially acceptable to some imaginary audience, I usually say to myself, "F uck that. What would this character truly say or do in this situation?"

Actually Chris, it makes it worse because people are more afraid now that they don't know who it is so every review looks exactly the same. Some people do try but that's the reason I don't participate in it and also the fact that most of the contests are just silly and lame.

I disagree, Wes. My reviews are all quite different; I've praised some, bagged some and had mixed emotions about others.   As for the contest, anything that gets people motivated to write has to be a good thing. IMO.

Doesn't take a lot to motivate people to begin with... Look at war.

And I wasn't necessarily talking about this recent contest either. Remember, I said SOME people do try. Again it's just an opinion from someone who looks over the threads to make sure no fighting and such is happening.

Perhaps I'm young and idealistic, but uh...

To hell with the audience, to hell with the studio execs, and to hell with, well, everyone.  My writing, my directing, my filmmaking is personal to me, and I'll be damned if I let other people change that.  I'm editing my film right now, and I'm cutting scenes, shots, lines that I absolutely love, but I'm cutting them because they don't fit into my vision of the best possible version of my movie.  If other people don't like it, well, then, I have a singular taste and I guess I'm doomed to change my art for all time to suit others, which I'm frankly not at all interested in doing.

I think you should write and direct and whatever else for yourself.  Everyone's got friends that like the same movies as them...if you make the movie that you want to see, other people should fall in line.  Even Spielberg says he just makes the movie he wants to see.

I dunno.  I'm not bothered by working with a low budget, I kinda like it.  It's my impression that if you're good at it you can make enough money that you don't have to work on stuff that you don't want to work on to support it.  Ultimately, I'd rather write or direct a low-budget Bruce Campbell movie that I and a few other people would love than write or direct a huge-budget Jessica Alba movie that the majority of people would get a mild kick out of and forget the next day.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd absolutely hate the latter, so I guess what I'm saying is that at this point in my life, I have no interest in working towards money.

Of course, I am eighteen.

Quoted from Death Monkey But I have nothing against the Make-one-crap-film/Make-one-good-film strategy. I don't think it's selling out if you look at it as a necessary evil and do it to finance the films you really want to do. It's like how people work at 7-11 to finance going to school. You have to do this boring, terrible job to get money to do what you really want to.

Death Monkey, I really think what your saying here is that it's ok if you sell out 50% of the time.  But some people who are making generic and even formulaic movies don't all consider it trash and they're not selling out if they truly believe in what they do and hopefully they're not saying: "I'm making a garbage film" to finance the next one.

I can understand that the quality of a film is subjective, so what I'm trying to say is it's the intent behind the work which is important.

When you even make a statement like: "I'm going to sell out half the time," which if you're honest, you'll see that's what you said even though you probably didn't mean to, you are collapsing your own argument.

I haven't seen anybody here say they want to write a cr** movie and I don't think that's what you intended, but it did come across as strange--for all your talk against appealing to public needs (which incidentally isn't cr** because they are people like you and me) I was surprised to read your post allowing yourself the liberty of compromising your integrity after you've condemned others in their efforts.

And one more thing, I respect the people that work at 7 11 and the people that serve up burgers and fries on a daily basis and yes, some are young and will move on, but others only marginally and remain in the service industry and thank God we have them looking after us.

We all know that we are dependent upon each other; but if more people really realized how important their contributions actually are--that even if they're only a truck driver, or only a cashier, or only a farmer or only a full time mom or dad or only a janitor working  nights--their hearts might be uplifted in knowing that still, they make the world work because of their efforts.

Hopefully no one will ever think that what they're working on is cr**

Sandra





Sandra

Quoted from Heretic Perhaps I'm young and idealistic, but uh... To hell with the audience, to hell with the studio execs, and to hell with, well, everyone.  My writing, my directing, my filmmaking is personal to me, and I'll be damned if I let other people change that.  I'm editing my film right now, and I'm cutting scenes, shots, lines that I absolutely love, but I'm cutting them because they don't fit into my vision of the best possible version of my movie.  If other people don't like it, well, then, I have a singular taste and I guess I'm doomed to change my art for all time to suit others, which I'm frankly not at all interested in doing. I think you should write and direct and whatever else for yourself.  Everyone's got friends that like the same movies as them...if you make the movie that you want to see, other people should fall in line.  Even Spielberg says he just makes the movie he wants to see. I dunno.  I'm not bothered by working with a low budget, I kinda like it.  It's my impression that if you're good at it you can make enough money that you don't have to work on stuff that you don't want to work on to support it.  Ultimately, I'd rather write or direct a low-budget Bruce Campbell movie that I and a few other people would love than write or direct a huge-budget Jessica Alba movie that the majority of people would get a mild kick out of and forget the next day.  In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd absolutely hate the latter, so I guess what I'm saying is that at this point in my life, I have no interest in working towards money. Of course, I am eighteen.

To paraphrase one of my all time favorite movies:

"You've got a lot to learn, and I hope you never learn it."

I agree with you completely. Maybe it is naive, but if we consider the alternative, naive is a pretty sweet deal. I'm far too young to be a cynic, anyway. I've got plenty of time to lose faith in the world when I have kids.

Don't let anyone tell you integrity is a bad thing in this world.

Quoted from Shelton The main issue here is... "What do you want to accomplish as a writer?"

I have to admit, this is something I've overlooked. I have no intentions of working in the Hollywood system whatsoever. 95% of what they produce is garbage. I'd say another 3% are good films that were made independently and then bought out by major studios and (re)distributed (which basically makes them independent films). With that said, I can get away with writing for myself first. Even if my scripts seem to run a little on the expensive side, I could still see them being filmed in a market other than Hollywood that produces films of a similar appeal. Heretic is someone who seems to share beliefs close to my own and he's making his own films independently. JD (Newton's Cradle) is someone who seems to be aiming for more commercial appeal and wrote a (IMO) dynamite script that could be sold to a mass audience. Both are doing what works for them and I think that's the best thing you can do when it comes to writing.

So yeah, I'm with Mike on this one.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Death Monkey, I really think what your saying here is that it's ok if you sell out 50% of the time.  But some people who are making generic and even formulaic movies don't all consider it trash and they're not selling out if they truly believe in what they do and hopefully they're not saying: "I'm making a garbage film" to finance the next one. I can understand that the quality of a film is subjective, so what I'm trying to say is it's the intent behind the work which is important. When you even make a statement like: "I'm going to sell out half the time," which if you're honest, you'll see that's what you said even though you probably didn't mean to, you are collapsing your own argument. I haven't seen anybody here say they want to write a cr** movie and I don't think that's what you intended, but it did come across as strange--for all your talk against appealing to public needs (which incidentally isn't cr** because they are people like you and me) I was surprised to read your post allowing yourself the liberty of compromising your integrity after you've condemned others in their efforts. And one more thing, I respect the people that work at 7 11 and the people that serve up burgers and fries on a daily basis and yes, some are young and will move on, but others only marginally and remain in the service industry and thank God we have them looking after us. We all know that we are dependent upon each other; but if more people really realized how important their contributions actually are--that even if they're only a truck driver, or only a cashier, or only a farmer or only a full time mom or dad or only a janitor working  nights--their hearts might be uplifted in knowing that still, they make the world work because of their efforts. Hopefully no one will ever think that what they're working on is cr** Sandra Sandra

1) Yes, I think it's perfectly fine to accept commision to write a soulless piece of garbage if it's funding a piece of art. Yes, I think it's all right to "sell out" 50% of the time.

But selling out is term I've never used in this thread, because I think it's a bit silly. Is a photographer selling out because he needs to take passport pictures of people by day to fund his exhibition of art? Maybe he is. But I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

It's about contributing something good to the craft you love. You may have to write a few crap movies to get it made, but when what you give back is "Pan's Labyrinth" or "The Devil's Backbone", then Mimic is a small price to pay.

2) You say that selling out is a conscious act and if you truly believe in what you do you're not selling out. That maybe so. I guess you can only really sell out if you've got some kind of talent you're compromising. People who write garbage and believes it's gold aren't sell-outs, they're just inept, I suppose.

3) I've seen people argue that integrity is of no importance and that they don't care what they write as long as they get paid. Money is the bottomline. And while you may try your best to make Shark Attack 4 the best script it can be, you know the parameters you work with won't allow it to be anything but a turd.

Personally I wouldn't be able to live with myself if that was ALL I did.

4) It's not do-or-die. I'm not a fundamentalist, and I have no idea why you would think so. I've never said you must ONLY make movies you like. I've said you HAVE to make movies you like.

Also, I'm not sure I've condemned anyone in this thread. I've spoken from a personal perspective, stating what I would be able to live with. Actually I think this very thread is a condemnantion of people who won't cater to the broad audience, so if anything I'm standing up for those (myself included) who don't necessarily feel that's true.

Secondly, could you explain your line about: "for all your talk against appealing to public needs (which incidentally isn't cr** because they are people like you and me)"

I don't follow you?

5) About respect.

There are two kinds of respect in my book. there's the inherent respect I afford anyone; that I respect their right to co-exist. Whether you are gay, muslim or nazi.

Then there's the specific kind. I don't inherently respect people who work at 7-11 in any particular way. I think it's a menial job that shouldn't get the same respect as say a surgeon or a playwright. This kind of respect rewards accomplishment. I respect the surgeon because of his skills in healing, the playwright for his skills in writing, because these are rare talents. Microwaving a hot dog isn't, IMO.

the clerks who serve me, may have extraordinary talents, but their job does not warrant my respect. If it did then my respect would mean nothing.

Of course the world needs all walks of life and all kinds of jobs to function 100%, but some jobs are more important than others. Some jobs sustain the world, while others mere make it more comfortable. If we had no doctors or lawyers society would collapse. If we had no janitors, life would be a tad more unpleasant, but not much.

But I think we're digressing now.

Quoted from Death Monkey:

"Secondly, could you explain your line about: "for all your talk against appealing to public needs (which incidentally isn't cr** because they are people like you and me)"

I don't follow you?"

It seems that the crux of your and my disagreement is the intention of why you perform a particular job.

You seem to say, "I do it for me and everything that is done for the hoi polloi isn't as important or to use your word: "Inept" people are churning it out.

It seems your attitude is so negative and that's why I said "...because they (the masses) are like you and me"--different yes definitely, but the human condition is the same no matter where you go.

It seems that you are contradicting yourself as you condemn working on what you might consider a dog, but then you turn around and say I'll do it to fund my art.  Now I know what you're saying: it makes perfect sense on one hand, yet I feel uncomfortable with the idea that people will do something that goes against their own standards--whatever they may be--and then say I did it for art's sake.

There are many ways to fund art.  Heavens, what if someone handed you money acquired from  a criminal source--would you take it for art's sake?

I think it was Mike who said to ask the question: "Why are you working on something?

This is important to know regardless of what an individual's answer is going to be.

Mostly I think people are looking for that balance between doing what they want and doing something that people will pay money to see; obviously they want an audience.  What have you got if you don't have an audience?

I don't know if I made it any clearer for you, but the controversy over a film's worth and  a person's worth and reception versus bestowal will continue long after you and I have breathed our last philosophical breaths.

Sandra

Quoted Text It seems that the crux of your and my disagreement is the intention of why you perform a particular job. You seem to say, "I do it for me and everything that is done for the hoi polloi isn't as important or to use your word: "Inept" people are churning it out.

Actually that's not what I said at all. I said people who churned out garbage under the pretense of churning gold were inept. I think that's a fair assessment. Do you disagree?

Quoted Text It seems your attitude is so negative and that's why I said "...because they (the masses) are like you and me"--different yes definitely, but the human condition is the same no matter where you go.

But Sandra, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. This is like that scene out of Thank you for Smoking where Aaron Eckhart re-directs the discourse from the dangers of smoking to patriotism. There is an important distinction between saying these people make crap and these people are crap. And the human condition has absolutely nothing to do with the former.

Quoted Text It seems that you are contradicting yourself as you condemn working on what you might consider a dog, but then you turn around and say I'll do it to fund my art.  Now I know what you're saying: it makes perfect sense on one hand, yet I feel uncomfortable with the idea that people will do something that goes against their own standards--whatever they may be--and then say I did it for art's sake.

But I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contrdicting the strawmen you set up. I never condemned working on a dog if it serves a purpose. You keep telling me that's my position, but it's not. Please, if you have concrete examples of direct contradiction, I'll comment on them. Thanks.

Quoted Text There are many ways to fund art.  Heavens, what if someone handed you money acquired from  a criminal source--would you take it for art's sake?

Uhm, so if I'm willing to do something that's beneath me to fund something I love, I must also be willing to commit crime? Oh my, what hope is there for those poor burger-flippers you admired so in your last post? If they're willing to stoop to that level to get themselves through school they must be willing to do anything...

Quoted Text I think it was Mike who said to ask the question: "Why are you working on something? This is important to know regardless of what an individual's answer is going to be. Mostly I think people are looking for that balance between doing what they want and doing something that people will pay money to see; obviously they want an audience.  What have you got if you don't have an audience?

I think I finally found the core difference between you and I. Because I would still write if I were the last person on the planet. Making up stories takes you other places, it invents new worlds and people you would never meet in a million years. I spend a lot of time in my own head, and I've gotten through many menial jobs by telling myself stories. transporting myself to another place in my imagination. Because what else is writing, if not documented imagination?

So why do I write? Because I've got no choice.