I've been surprised to see some amazing scripts receive poor reviews and some poor scripts receive really good ones.  What gives?

"I know--I know!"  My hands are shaking hard into the air, trying to get noticed.

One poster put it well: That we're all different.  "Different strokes for different folks" sort of thing.

And I thought I'd post this, because in another critique group I belong to, I've noticed a common error.  In fact, a physicist writer I know (who's quite the brain) had the same problem as the hoi polloi--"Writing in a Vacuum.  What does this mean?

It's a symptom of young writers where they constantly navel gaze and wind up writing mysterious literary works, but they don't have any real direction and they fall short with their marketing.

To put it one way: When you see a sign that you know signals the selling of a particular kind of burger, if you're in the mood for that burger, you'll follow the sign.

Likewise, if you're in the mood for Chinese, you'll follow that sign.

So what's this got to do with writing?

Well, when we write we should be thinking about the audience we're writing for.  We should be serving up our dinner with a regular consistency.

I'm talking about branding.

If we develop a particular style for ourselves under a particular name, we've developed a consistency.  People have expectations, and we meet them.

In the case of my physicist, well, he was writing all across the board until he found out that he should focus a little more and develop a name.  Like say "Steven King" for instance.  You hear his name and you think: Scary.

In short, what I'm saying here is that irregardless of your particular bent: market yourself accordingly and to the particular audience that you see buying what it is you're selling.

So find your niche and then go for it.  You're not going to please everyone, but your plan is to please your target audience.

So then: What gives?  You give.  You give into the market that you're applying yourself to.  You realize that yes, this is art, but also, this is business.

Some people say that if you give in (start pandering the public) that you're prostituting yourself.  Only YOU know if you're really crafting compared to throwing cheap thrills and shock.  Sometimes, it's hard to tell the difference.  We shake our heads and wonder...

Irregardless, I don't think you can go wrong if you are at least questioning the way it is that you are working and trying to understand it.

Writing is such a solitary affair; the soul searching is bound to happen.  I'm constantly  weighing what I write with the motive behind it.   I'd like to think I get more out of it than a big fat paycheck and a by line.

Sandra

Stories just happen to me. Sometimes it's drama about senior citizens with Alzheimers, sometimes zombies that that eat teenagers on Halloween and sometimes raunchy comedy and so on.

I don't know what type of scripts others think of when they see my name. In fact I think I would hate to be labeled as this or that type of writer.

As far as the critiquing goes of the OWC scripts... well, there are LOTS of really young people here and most people here are also males. I think it's only natural if they view scripts differently than someone like me "older, female" for example.

As far as the writing itself goes, I can say that I really enjoy reading a well written script with awesome style and amazing use of the English language. However, that doesn't show on film though. As a film, it's the story that shows, not the writers us eof English.

Hope that made sense. I just woke up, I'm still in bed. In fact I might still be sleeping.

The thing is, Sandra, you're talking about two widely different things. You have critical acclaim on the one hand and then marketability or financial succes on the other. You're trying to make these two congruous by saying that there's something wrong with giving eclectic, obscure, artsy, or as you put it, navel-gazing scripts a thumbs up because they don't cave in to the market.

At least that's how I interpreted your post. Correct me if I'm wrong.

One's review of something could take into consideration "feasibility" (many contests do) but on a site like this I don't recommend it. Because even if there wasn't a market, even if there wasn't a Hollywood, I would still write, and I'd like to think I would write about the same things. A script's inherent quality is neither improved nor hurt by how much money it will make, or how wide an audience it's gonna reach.

So what is an Amazing script? Well, that is an entirely subjective matter and cannot, nor should it be, measured by how much money a prodco hypothetically would pay for it. IMO.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I've been surprised…some poor scripts receive really good ones.  What gives?

There are those who give honest feedback, and those who simply dish out praise in hopes of earning a “return read” from the author.

The “read for a read” system works pretty well for the most part -- it helps keep the boards going -- but this is one flaw in the system that nobody has figured out how to cure yet.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I'm talking about branding.

I would contend that several authors here qualify as a "brand".  I would submit our mischievous friend Helio as exhibit A, but there are certainly many others.  Breanne springs to mind, as well.

I would suggest to you that branding is not so much a matter of genre, but of voice and style.  To cite your example, not everything that Stephen King writes is scary, but all of his works exhibit a voice that is uniquely his own.

That is why there is a "Guessing" thread for the one-week challenge.  Frequent readers on these boards can often identify an author from a work whether their name is on it or not.

Interesting post, though.  Some good points there.

I think you should write for yourself first and your audience second. Otherwise, you're likely to produce something utterly soulless. One of my professors was the production designer for some major Hollywood films (ranging from One Flew Over The Cookoo's Nest to Conspiracy Theory). He said once that Hollywood producers make what they think people want to see and not what they think is good and that's the problem so it's not just us lowly writers who think that way. In any case, I don't see why anyone here would have to worry about their audiences anyway. Most of the scripts I've read are marketable to a wide audience but only a few of the people I've spoken to here have put the audience before themselves. In any case, people here are selling scripts they wrote for themselves, first and foremost, and I think that kinda says something.

As for the reviews of scripts on the site, I think Pia made a good point. In any case, I'm disinclined to agree with you. Most of the good scripts I've read on this site have received good reviews and the bad scripts... not so much. I think most of the people here are pretty honest and will tell the writer what they really thought about their script. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I've been surprised to see some amazing scripts receive poor reviews and some poor scripts receive really good ones.  What gives?

This has been discussed before. Not only is it a problem, it's a shame.

After a member was banned for stealing a script, he went about talking poorly about a members script who when he was here praised it.

If you want honest reviews you have to stop being everyones friend. When everyone loves you, you get a lot of sugar and a lot of the reviews start reading condescending and fake. I feel sorry for one member in particular who gets the condescending and fake reviews that I just cannot read anymore.

Just my opinion so take from it what you will.

[quote=James]I think you should write for yourself first and your audience second.

There's a delicate balance that needs to take place.  If we are just writing for ourselves, we can do whatever we want.  In that case we wouldn't need to worry about the tools of the trade.  We wouldn't need to worry about submission guidelines and where (if it's a book) it's going to be shelved.  Certainly we need to recognize our audience though, if we're writing for eight year olds, we need to consider their intellectual level, vocabulary, what's trendy in the eight year old universe.

Don't be mistaken to think I'm saying one shouldn't write for themselves.  Most certainly you'd have a soulless work if you didn't, but I feel that it's a writers job to either teach, inspire, simply entertain or produce emotional sensations of some sort--maybe all at once in some glorious cases... and "Tuesdays with Morrie" comes to mind.  (The book rather, I haven't seen the movie yet.)

What I've learned, is that if I as a writer fail with clarity in that the reader doesn't "get" it, or if I engage myself but fail to engage the reader, whether it's a script, a novel, a short story or an article, then I'm missing out on what I feel is the goal.  It's my fault if I don't fulfill my obligations to my audience.

I'm being philosophical here.  One way I think is this:  Pretend I'm a chef and I cook meals--all day, all kinds.  Am I expected to eat lots of everything I prepare?  Of course not, but I do sample it so that I know it tastes good.  Even though I'm not eating it, my concern is for the customer.  I'm not cooking to eat, I'm cooking for someone else to eat.  Does that make sense?  

Anyways, this analogy came to mind due to the fact that I knew a chef when I lived in Regina and he said that when he came home, he was so happy when his wife made Kraft Dinner.  And I really thought, "It's so true."  Whenever I cook something, I want the other people to enjoy it.  I'm not so much cooking for myself as to be able to watch their faces light up... What digression eh?

In short, whatever is built, be it houses, cars or scripts, they're being structured according to various tastes, needs, and particular markets.  Not considering the market is like producing old fashioned lap-warmers when we drive in heated vehicles.

On the other hand, not considering our own needs is like going on a trip to Vegas if you hate Vegas and want to go on some soul retreat.

Again, balance is what I like to keep in mind.

Sandra

Quoted from Old Time Wesley If you want honest reviews you have to stop being everyones friend. When everyone loves you, you get a lot of sugar and a lot of the reviews start reading condescending and fake. I feel sorry for one member in particular who gets the condescending and fake reviews that I just cannot read anymore.

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?"

At MoviePoet you get a lot of honest feedback, because no names are revealed until a month later. They have a voting system to that goes from "Poor" "Fair" "Good" "Very Good" to "Excellent".

Chris, that runs the place goes over the scores before they go public. He deletes any poor and fair scores that only has praise in the review. That way you can't vote low for something without explaining to the author why you didn't like their script. In other words, shower the writer with praise while voting low.

I like the OWC here and have always appreciated all feedback. This time I was "outed" early though, but I don't think anyone would be afraid to tell me they didn't like it.

I don't think one needs to put their characters into boxes and make them "socially acceptable."  That's not what good writing is about.  It's about insight and forethought.  It's about the application of situation to the human condition.

No one says you should try and "change" your characters to fit some kind of imaginary audience.  But if your audience is "imaginary," then you might ask why you think that it's that way.

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. No one says you should try and "change" your characters to fit some kind of imaginary audience.

But by actually having a target audience that's exactly what you'll end up doing. I don't think you need to target an audience. If you write as honestly as you can and the work is good it'll find its own audience.

We all have our theories on writing and some can articulate them better than others, but at the end of the day it all comes down to the quality of your script, not the quality of your theories. This is one of the reasons why critics and intellectual snobs don't like comedy, because no amount of intellectual brow-beating can convince an audience to laugh at something they don't find funny.  

Writing without an audience in mind is equivalent to masturbation.

Quoted from Chris: "...but at the end of the day it all comes down to the quality of your script, not the quality of your theories."

I agree.

Just don't sell peanut goodies to those who are allergic to nuts.  That's not theory, there's a bad reaction in that.

I know how much people hate to hear that their precious "art" is under attack and they must somehow kowtow to the industry, but I'm just trying to be realistic here.  There are plenty of brilliant starving artists who never sell a thing, and there are plenty of rich hacks.  But how many brilliant hacks are there?  Ok, they're not hacks: they're "prolific."

Right now the publishing industry is under tremendous pressure.  Books get sent back from books stores so fast it isn't even funny.  Anyone who's serious about getting published, needs to educate themselves (at least a little) regarding the industry.  You don't need to sacrifice your own beliefs or style, but be aware of the greater world because that's always where the next story comes from anyways--the greater world.

Sci-fi is really a tricky one to work with because everything is moving so fast and I know myself I had based one story on research I had done and then: Pow! I learned that the foundation of the story, which was based on the cause of a particular anomalous crater, had just been proved otherwise than earlier theories.  So the premise of that story exploded into smithereens as fast as you can say. "smither."

It's a fast world we live in.

Sandra

Sandra

Quoted from Mcornetto Writing without an audience in mind is equivalent to masturbation.

I love to masturbate. It's completely normal and relieves stress.

But seriously, my general philosophy is that I write what I feel like and assume that there are other like minded individuals out there that like what I like and they would constitute my audience. Thats not to say that trying to target an audience is bad, in fact it probably takes more skill to do that, I'm just not there yet.

sheepwalker

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. [quote=James]I think you should write for yourself first and your audience second. There's a delicate balance that needs to take place.  If we are just writing for ourselves, we can do whatever we want.  In that case we wouldn't need to worry about the tools of the trade.  We wouldn't need to worry about submission guidelines and where (if it's a book) it's going to be shelved.  Certainly we need to recognize our audience though, if we're writing for eight year olds, we need to consider their intellectual level, vocabulary, what's trendy in the eight year old universe. Don't be mistaken to think I'm saying one shouldn't write for themselves.  Most certainly you'd have a soulless work if you didn't, but I feel that it's a writers job to either teach, inspire, simply entertain or produce emotional sensations of some sort--maybe all at once in some glorious cases... and "Tuesdays with Morrie" comes to mind.  (The book rather, I haven't seen the movie yet.) What I've learned, is that if I as a writer fail with clarity in that the reader doesn't "get" it, or if I engage myself but fail to engage the reader, whether it's a script, a novel, a short story or an article, then I'm missing out on what I feel is the goal.  It's my fault if I don't fulfill my obligations to my audience. I'm being philosophical here.  One way I think is this:  Pretend I'm a chef and I cook meals--all day, all kinds.  Am I expected to eat lots of everything I prepare?  Of course not, but I do sample it so that I know it tastes good.  Even though I'm not eating it, my concern is for the customer.  I'm not cooking to eat, I'm cooking for someone else to eat.  Does that make sense?   Anyways, this analogy came to mind due to the fact that I knew a chef when I lived in Regina and he said that when he came home, he was so happy when his wife made Kraft Dinner.  And I really thought, "It's so true."  Whenever I cook something, I want the other people to enjoy it.  I'm not so much cooking for myself as to be able to watch their faces light up... What digression eh? In short, whatever is built, be it houses, cars or scripts, they're being structured according to various tastes, needs, and particular markets.  Not considering the market is like producing old fashioned lap-warmers when we drive in heated vehicles. On the other hand, not considering our own needs is like going on a trip to Vegas if you hate Vegas and want to go on some soul retreat. Again, balance is what I like to keep in mind. Sandra

I think Ricky Gervais said it best:

"There's nothing wrong with getting 20 million viewers, but I think there's something wrong with aiming at getting 20 million viewers, because then you have to take away all the things that will offend, and you'll end up with something so anodyne that it just washes over you for half an hour. I imagine The Office was also one of the most hated shows on television, that some people passionately hated it. But that's better, for me.

Bear in mind literature predates the printing press and the wide audience by thousands of years. People have always written, or told stories, because it's a natural impulse in (some) human beings. Of course, on a general level, you must be aware of the fact that there is an audience, and be able to facilitate thoughts and ideas to people aren't you. But hopefully the audience listens because they like the stories YOU have, not because you tell them the stories you think they want to hear.

The reason why there are so many crappy movies these days (that are failing at the box office as well) is because the mantra of studios is "the customer is always right". But you know what? A movie is not a ho-ho. You can't create a recipe and then mass produce it and always get a great result.

At this point it's become a staple and almost a cliche but one of my favorite scenes in movies is the monologue in which a character tells a seemingly non related story to the situation he is in. Usually about a friend or some tale he heard but it seems like a pure tangent and a good writer will craft it so that you're wondering what is the relevancy for as long as possible. And then it hits you. This story, as unrelated and detailed as it is, sums up a universal emotion that most all of us can relate with.

That's what I think a good movie is. A tale that captures our imagination, has us going "these characters are so foriegn to me and this situation is so unique" but you leave thinking, if only on a subconscious level, that I know exactly how they felt. If you feel as a writer that creating empathy from your audience is not part of your job, then, like it was offered before, you are just whack, whack, whacking.

Quoted from Souter Fell If you feel as a writer that creating empathy from your audience is not part of your job, then, like it was offered before, you are just whack, whack, whacking.

I don't think anybody's saying that at all.

Going back to Sandra's parable about the cook in the restaurant. A good cook has an audience because his food attracts them. He will have special courses that comprise the menu, and people will choose from these what they want to eat.
However, he does not poll the customers what they want to eat and then adjusts his menu. He trusts that his expert taste will sooth an audience.

And so must writers. The question is, who is the "audience"? There huge discrepancies between what critics like and what Joe and Martha from Iowa like. And if we for the sake of argument say there are a thousand Joe and Martha's for every critic or film geek, does that mean Joe and Martha are more important to solicit empathy from?

I don't think so. I might be elitist, but I'd much rather have people who know and love cinema to appreciate what I write than those who merely see movies as a social backdrop, a quick bang for the buck.

I mean Big Momma's House 2 grossed $138,000,000 worldwide...

I'd rather enjoy the respect of one person I respect than a hundred I don't.

Of course if I was offered six figures I would write Big momma's House 3 in a heart-beat. And it'd be three times as awful as the other two combined.

But I'd only do that if I would be making money. My integrity can be bought, but it's expensive.

Quoted from Death Monkey My integrity can be bought, but it's expensive.

Mine's not. It's for sale to any one who would care to pay, and cheap, too.

The audience is who ever is going to pay you.

Being a commercial artist for the past 15 years, any artistic integrity I had went out the door along time ago.

I could care less about art for art's sake.

They want Big Momma 4? I'm on it, and I'd work my butt off to make Big Momma 4 the best, funniest and roll on the floor hysterical comedy I can.

Is that my genre or forte? Nope, but it is now. I'd become a Tyler Perry expert-Look at reviews, see what worked before, what didn't, what people liked, what they didn't, and write to that end.

Is it selling out? Maybe, but in the end, it's just business.

Is it going to be crap because it's not written from the inspiration of the soul? If it is, then I'd not be a very good writer.

You have to adopt a project, like a relationship. At first, you just get to know it, then as you dig deeper into the story, the characters, you get to know them, how they think, feel, and act, and by the end, it's your baby.

However, it is a shared baby that will be brutally disected, tweaked and adjusted by the rest of the family, the directors, the actress, the guy in the boardroom who just wants to put a thumbprint on it by making that guy, well make him a girl instead so his niece can play the part.

You got it, chief.

The client's problem is my problem. That's the deal.

Is that a hack? I'd rather be a hack making some money and getting some laughs writing Big Momma's House 4 than doing anything else.

To me, that's a professional, and that's where I want to get to.

Yes. Yes, that's being a hack.

But you sound like you've got it down and aren't ashamed of it, so good luck with it.

You'll probably see more money than I ever will.

Quoted from Death Monkey Yes. Yes, that's being a hack. But you sound like you've got it down and aren't ashamed of it, so good luck with it. You'll probably see more money than I ever will.

Hopefully one day I'll get the opportunity to hack full-time.

Although just because a project is commisioned does not make the art any less vaiid...Almost any work in the Classical Era was paid for by someone else.

Mozart, Michealangelo, Da Vinci, all those guys did it for the cash and or financial support...Mona Lisa wasn't painted cause Leonardo felt the artistic urge...She was painted cuz Francesco Del Giacondo wanted a portrait done...The Arts Council in Florence wanted some Old Testament statues...So Michealangelo made David...

Heck, they wanted a movie done of a Mario Puzo book, so we got the Godfather...

Warner Bros. wanted a movie based on the Hong Kong film Internal Affiars, so William Monahan took it, added his touch, and we got The Departed....

The goal is to take a clients sow's ear and give them back the silk purse...

Quoted from Blakkwolfe Mine's not. It's for sale to any one who would care to pay, and cheap, too. The audience is who ever is going to pay you. Being a commercial artist for the past 15 years, any artistic integrity I had went out the door along time ago. I could care less about art for art's sake.            ... Is it selling out? Maybe, but in the end, it's just business. Is it going to be cr** because it's not written from the inspiration of the soul? If it is, then I'd not be a very good writer.        ... The client's problem is my problem. That's the deal. Is that a hack? I'd rather be a hack making some money and getting some laughs writing Big Momma's House 4 than doing anything else. To me, that's a professional, and that's where I want to get to.

Here, here!

Wow, I found that almost inspiring, courageous, and I can respect that. Thats some nice insight Blakkwolfe.

sheepwalker

Blakkwolffe, you're obviously an intelligent soul who understands the concept of business and professionalism which means that people supply what's in demand: sometimes it just so happens that we luck out and our niche fits perfectly with that demand and when that happens, it's just icing on the cake... and yes, we can influence that demand by our own creative ideas; that's what happens when things creep into the market and they get noticed because they're unique, not because of hype or bandwagon.  (which still follows after the creeping)

I really appreciate your stand up tall and proud attitude--not being afraid to work--even if it's low end work.  Work is work.  And opening oneself up to various challenges even if we think it's not "our bag" can be an awesome opportunity for growth.

So here's another "Here-here!"

Sandra

Quoted from Blakkwolfe Hopefully one day I'll get the opportunity to hack full-time. Although just because a project is commisioned does not make the art any less vaiid...Almost any work in the Classical Era was paid for by someone else. Mozart, Michealangelo, Da Vinci, all those guys did it for the cash and or financial support...Mona Lisa wasn't painted cause Leonardo felt the artistic urge...She was painted cuz Francesco Del Giacondo wanted a portrait done...The Arts Council in Florence wanted some Old Testament statues...So Michealangelo made David... Heck, they wanted a movie done of a Mario Puzo book, so we got the Godfather... Warner Bros. wanted a movie based on the Hong Kong film Internal Affiars, so William Monahan took it, added his touch, and we got The Departed.... The goal is to take a clients sow's ear and give them back the silk purse...

Though you must admit it's funny how that analogy doesn't fit with classical literature, which is what we're dealing with. Sculptures and paitings were often commissioned simply because they cost a lot of money and you would HAVE to be rich have them made.

Books that were commissioned seldom turned out that well. Actually most of them were propaganda and artistically worthless.

You reduce screenwriting, or filmmaking, to nothing but business. I respectfully disagree, But then I'm European.

Fact is most films that try to capture the broadest audience possible are utter crap. By reducing filmmaking to what you have, you eliminate the good and the bad movie. All there is are profitable films and non-profitable films. And that's fine if you're a businessman. But let me remind you Uwe Boll's movies make money.

If profit is the bottomline for you, if integrity is useless to you, it would seem your medium (screenwriting) is coincidental at best.

I'm not saying it's not necessary to do crappy projects that pay well. I'm saying that it's  not art. I'm saying it's not interesting. I'm saying it's empty.

Though it might be a necessary evil.

ButI wouldn't be able to live with myself if that's all I did. And most actors can't either, which is why you see they do one big crappy film and then afford 3 indies.


P.S.

This is rather quickly turning into a congratulatory circle-jerk in the camp of those who are wrong

There was another conversation along the lines of artistic integrity vs making money not too long ago, where I had cited an article by Bill Martell (I think) about John Sayles.

John had been given the task of writing Piranha, and even though he thought the idea was crap, he put everything he could into it and in turn ended up getting other work when people saw how good the script was.

A good writer can find that balance.  Take pride in your work, and enjoy the ride to the bank.

Here's a note from some guy who used to be a writer back in the day;

TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE HENRY WRIOTHESLEY, EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON, AND BARON OF TICHFIELD.
RIGHT HONORABLE,

I KNOW not how I shall offend in dedicating my
unpolished lines to your lordship, nor how the world will
censure me for choosing so strong a prop to support so weak a
burden only, if your honour seem but pleased, I account
myself highly praised, and vow to take advantage of all idle
hours, till I have honoured you with some graver labour. But if
the first heir of my invention prove deformed, I shall be
sorry it had so noble a god-father, and never after ear so
barren a land, for fear it yield me still so bad a harvest.
I leave it to your honourable survey, and your honour to your
heart's content; which I wish may always answer your own wish
and the world's hopeful expectation.

Your honour's in all duty,
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE.

Jeez, Will...Kiss up much?

I'm just jokin with you, DM...Me, I'd just rather see Bruce Willis blow-up a supertanker than watch Emma Thompson discuss 18th century courtship rituals. Granted, it may be slightly more interesting if she were naked or otherwise scantily clad, but not that much. Cast Megan Fox, well, now you got my attention...

Fortunatly, there is room for both the art and the crap, the sacred and the obscene and hopefully the higher powers will grant us both great success in whatever path we choose to follow...

Quoted Text If profit is the bottomline for you, if integrity is useless to you, it would seem your medium (screenwriting) is coincidental at best.

I couldn't agree more. People with this attitude, and I don't mean this nastily, would be far better off spending their time doing a Law Degree or becoming a Stockbroker and playing the futures market, investing in mining or whatever.

The world is already full of hacks. There is nothing good about being paid a pittance to knock out a script that deep down you know isn't very good. It can even be soul destroying.

The "Industry" aren't the only people who make films. In this day and age one can reach wide audiences through the internet and such and with broadband, streaming and downloading are possibilities.

The attitude that it is just about money is killing Cinema around the world, because it is making it a throwaway purchase, rather than a cultural one and people will simply move on to new fads.

As regards John Sayles, John used the industry money to fund his own independent projects. That was his reason for writing them. That point seems to have been omitted from Mike's testament.

Quoted Text Sayles's radicalism has never been in doubt. Since cutting his teeth as a screenwriter for Roger Corman, he has carved himself a unique position in American film-making, funding small-scale, personal projects with lucrative stints as a Hollywood hack-for-hire. It has earned him a reputation as a kind of contemporary Robin Hood, taking the cash earned from writing trash exploiters (Alligator, Piranha) and blockbusters (Apollo 13, The Sixth Day) and ploughing it into high-toned political dramas like Matewan, Lone Star or City of Hope. For many years it seemed that Sayles had found an ideal balance. But the times they are a-changing. He explains that the writer has lost ground in Hollywood over recent years and that his position is shakier as a result. Sayles is now forced to "audition" for rewrite work (which can mean that the studio can use his ideas free of charge), and is sometimes forced to write three drafts while only being paid for one. Moreover, he and Renzi appear disillusioned with the state of independent cinema and the ambitions of the generation coming up. "It's very sweet to meet all these young film-makers who admire John," Renzi says. "But at a certain point I realise that what they admire is his career, not his work. These kids are not going to make Matewan or City of Hope. They have no interest in going to those places."

From this article:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,1533071,00.html


Hollywood chews up and spits out hacks every day. They don't care about you. They especially don't care about you if you have no integrity, why would they? You've already accepted your place in the great scheme of things.

How have writers who haven't even made it got to a point that they are willing to sell their souls for money?

With all the issues in the world, all the incredible stories that need telling; With all the hope that seems to have drifted out of peoples lives, is the best thing a writer can hope for, a small cheque for some hack brief?

I think not...

Quoted from Blakkwolfe Here's a note from some guy who used to be a writer back in the day; TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE HENRY WRIOTHESLEY, EARL OF SOUTHAMPTON, AND BARON OF TICHFIELD. RIGHT HONORABLE, I KNOW not how I shall offend in dedicating my unpolished lines to your lordship, nor how the world will censure me for choosing so strong a prop to support so weak a burden only, if your honour seem but pleased, I account myself highly praised, and vow to take advantage of all idle hours, till I have honoured you with some graver labour. But if the first heir of my invention prove deformed, I shall be sorry it had so noble a god-father, and never after ear so barren a land, for fear it yield me still so bad a harvest. I leave it to your honourable survey, and your honour to your heart's content; which I wish may always answer your own wish and the world's hopeful expectation. Your honour's in all duty, WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. Jeez, Will...Kiss up much? I'm just jokin with you, DM...Me, I'd just rather see Bruce Willis blow-up a supertanker than watch Emma Thompson discuss 18th century courtship rituals. Granted, it may be slightly more interesting if she were naked or otherwise scantily clad, but not that much. Cast Megan Fox, well, now you got my attention... Fortunatly, there is room for both the art and the crap, the sacred and the obscene and hopefully the higher powers will grant us both great success in whatever path we choose to follow...

I hope we don't have to choose between Bruce Willis and Emma Thompson, 'cause I'd take Die Hard over Sense and Sensibility any day.

I'm talking more along the lines of guys like Tom Tykwer, Krzysztof Kieslowski, Michael Haneke, Wim Wenders, Roman Polanski, Darren Aronofsky, Hal Hartley, Spike Jonze, Jim Jarmusch, David Cronenberg, PT Anderson, Robert Altman, Richard Linklater, Todd Field, Todd Solondz.

All who obviously manage to find work and do what they love, and have done so for several decades (many of them).

Obviously you can make great commercial films as well, it'd be inane to argue otherwise. David Fincher is one of my favorite directors, and I love exploitationist monster b-movies. But look what happens when you add vision and integrity to what would otherwise be generic horror. You get The Descent, which in my opinion was one of the greatest horrorfilms in recent years.

My point was simply that to do projects that you know are utter crap, and nothing else, is pernicious to cinema. I, like many others, complain about how many bad movies get made all the time, so if I get in a position where I can change that, well I'm gonna try.

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.

But I agree with you about nudity. We need more of it. Unfortunately nudity doesn't sell tickets. In Hollywood at least. All the more reason to go art-house!

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films From this article: http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,1533071,00.html Hollywood chews up and spits out hacks every day. They don't care about you. They especially don't care about you if you have no integrity, why would they? You've already accepted your place in the great scheme of things. How have writers who haven't even made it got to a point that they are willing to sell their souls for money? With all the issues in the world, all the incredible stories that need telling; With all the hope that seems to have drifted out of peoples lives, is the best thing a writer can hope for, a small cheque for some hack brief? I think not...

Thank god, a kindred spirit!

John Sayles also suggested for Jurassic Park IV that it should feature "hybrid" soldiers, half dinosaur and half-human. Haha! That's just beyond terrible. but I bet some studio fat-cat somewhere is going "Of course! Humasaurs! Brilliant!!!"

Maybe I'm still just not cynical enough. I'd definitely be willing to do what John Sayles does (or has done) but I like you say, with all the incredible stories to tell, is this really all there is?

In Hollywood, maybe it is. I don't know. But the fact that the directors in my post above still get work gives me hope.

Even if Peter Greenaway pronounced cinema dead in 1983.

Dear Lord,

Thank you for the world so sweet,
Thank you for my bread and sweets,

Thank you for movies like Grease and Ghost,
Thank you for butter I spread on my toast.

My thanks for the humble like Brady Bunch Shows,
My thanks for the depth of our Bette Midler's "Rose"

But most of all,
Thanks for the people that be,
The whole group and those that should fight to agree.

From Screenwriting for Dummies:

(Yes, I bought that book too.)

Page 274: Highlighting the Universal

"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."

When I saw the last Harry Potter, I was astounded by the craft in this movie, because I've read all the books, and I can understand how some people might question the way it was made.

Despite some people's arguments that Harry's emotional turmoil wasn't captured in the movie, the Doloris Umbridge character was played to the hilt and successfully so.  It was "Disneyish" where little kids could enjoy it and watch as she got her dues and the funny pranks of Fred and George were mastered wonderfully on screen.  But yes, there's sacrifice, and Harry's brooding didn't show up.

However, the scene at the very beginning encapsulated all of Harry's turmoil and his "growing up" experience.  When the clouds darken on the playground and he leaves the swingset, we know that he's truly leaving his childhood behind.  This was highly crafted, though some people might just easily be negative and call it cr**.

Really, I believe that even what might seem to be the most banal, has golden nuggets; it just depends upon your perspective.  Also, we need to consider age as a huge factor.

Teen movies, family movies, kiddie movies, movies that push the edge and are definitely restricted, comedies like "License to Wed" (I loved that by the way) -- they've all got their place.

Not just for writers, but for the executives working on the film at the marketing level: they have to have an idea where they are going to slot the film.

It's and important subject and it all has to do with packaging.

I know it's hard.  I write comedy and also dark fiction.  How the heck do I package that?  Pseudonyms come to mind.

I was joking recently with one of the writers here about a collaborative effort--that if some elements make it into the rewrites, I can blame it on them.  In a way, I'm serious: when we write, sometimes, we bring some dark things to the surface, skeletons, fantasies...  If you're writing as a team, you can hide behind the other writers and blame it on them.  Isn't that awful?

Really though, I do think that we bring each other up when we work together on projects because we are all so different.  And especially because we try and work deadlines which is hard.

Once you are working deadlines, you start and feel things in your bones.  If your at page 10, you know what page 10 should feel like.  You also know if you're not using the idea of "movie" to its fullest advantage by having characters sitting in one spot too long.

It's getting late.  Goodnight all.

Sandra

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.

Quoted from Death Monkey So why do I write? Because I've got no choice.

Me too.

Everything else?  You know how it goes. ...

... ... ... ... ... ...

This thread appears to have come full circle, with everyone now agreeing that you should just write what you like.

Before this thread dies its death, I'd like to comment on a few things.

Firstly I think Mike is spot on when he says that you should be aware of what you yourself are trying to do. That is the most important step in defining yourself as a writer and also lays out the steps you have to take to become "successful".

This also fits in with what Sandra is saying about branding.

What is your own definition of success? What is it that you are trying to accomplish?

Is it money? Fame? Is there one particular film that you have dreamt about since you were a kid that absolutely has to be shown worldwide?

There are two ways of becoming a successful screenwriter, if you break it down. Even these aren't mutually exclusive.

1.Selling to The studio system

2. Selling to Independents.

(There is a third, indirect way which may be beneficial to some: Writing a Novel, then selling the film rights. That is one of the best way, if you can do it. No issues of Copyright, you get to have more control and you get more money. This route is probably essential if you write truly epic work that requires vast sums to make.).

A quick trawl through wiki pages will show you that there are only 5 or 6 studios in the whole world. Disney, Sony, Fox etc These companies are all huge media and electronic companies who have vertical integration throughout TV, publishing, music, interent etc They own phone companies,newspapers, News Channels.

In short they control everything that you read and see every single day. All the old independent companies like Miramax are now studio owned (by Disney in that case). Fox have Searchlight as their "independent" arm.

These companies are controlled by Accountants and Lawyers. They need money more than anything else. The films that they desire have broad appeal.

They want a film that can be used as an advert for the DVD (cinema takings are so low they now view Theatrical release as an advertising campaign for the DVD sales) they use the film to sell the Original Soundtrack. They have the actors come on TV to fill the air, to fill newspapers. The trailers come out on your mobile phones.

They want films that become franchises. They want to sell merchandise. Films now become progressively more popular, the old law of diminishing returns was turned on its head by DVD sales.

In short if you want to sell to a studio, write films that allow for all of these things. And move to L.A. 95% of business deals are secured over cocktails, between friends. It's the same in every single business in the world.

The overriding concern for these types of film is genre. I think this is the point Sandra is making. Genre is the thing that sells films. If you have a comedy, you know where to advertise it and who to. Same with horror or romances etc. Studios hate unconventional films because they simply do not know how to market them effectively. Films that mess with genre like Bladerunner and Intolerable Cruelty are very hard to market.

Lionsgate has effectively driven the bottom out of the independent horror market at the moment, by buying absolutely everything being made in the search for the new Saw. Trouble is they only want gore and what they call "T&A" (Tits and ass) because that is what sells to the 16 year old-30 year old demographic that watches those films.
If there is no gore or titties by page 2, it's in the bin.

The problem is, as we have seen on here, is that as writers you very often want to get away from "generic" writing. If you want to write something that isn't generic, then you have a very limited audience. I'm not sure if it is limited in terms of numbers, but certainly in terms of availability. It is hard to get the word out to like minded-people.

There are only four cinemas in the entire UK that now show independent films. One where i live, one in Bristol, two in London. I'm sure the situation is as dire in the US.

As Sandra rightly points out, without branding and without genre, how do you get people to watch the films? Independent films don't have billboard marketing, newspaper and prime-time coverage and so no-one knows they even exist.

I went to see Andrea Arnold's Red Road (the first British feature made under the Dogma rules). Andrea herslef was at the Cinema doing a Q and A. The only reason I knew it was coming out was that I saw a tiny aside on a web-page talking about Lars Von Trier! At a distribution seminar I went to, full of independent filmmakers, the question was asked who had seen it ( the lecturer was making the point that no-one supports independent cinema, even those who are involved in the scene). I was the only one out of 120 to have seen it.

In short then I understand where Sandra is coming from, I think where Sandra went wrong was to correlate broad appeal to critical merit.

The problem with all this of course is that it is turning filmmaking and writing into an entirely commercial force.

Independent companies are forced to act like mini-majors. George Lucas leaves the Studio system because they are editing his films to make them more commercialll acceptable, 20 or so years later he is justifying the inclusion of Jar Jar Binks saying and I paraphrase " 12 year olds like the charcater and when you are an independent company, every penny counts".

He becomes everything that he was trying to get away from.

This is happening to Cinema in every country in the world. It has become a consumer product, without anything of value to add.

This is a problem on a huge cultural scale, because film and Art in general is losing its power to influence the thinking of the ordinary person. Films are no longer a window on the world, a medium for shared experience and learning. They are just entertainment and are put out of mind as soon as they are watched.

It is a monumental problem and one that every writer, filmmaker and film fan needs to address.

Well, I have a question for everyone: Do you write in the hopes that the script will get produced or do you write for the sake of writing?

Personally, I write cos' I need to get a story out of my system. For me it's a great way (and basically the only way) to tunnel those creative genes into something positive. It's almost cathartic in a way. Once an idea forms in my brain this is the only way to get it out. But I don't write scripts wishing and hoping that it'll get produced. I'm fortunate enough to have a job that earns me a lot of money so I'm not doing this for the almighty green either.

Sure, getting a script produced would be nice. If Fox would wanna throw a million dollars at me I'll take it, but I don't really think about it. Plus, all of my scripts have already been produced once - in my head (and Steven Spielberg can kiss my brain's ass cos' it'll kick his any day of the week).

But I can certainly understand if someone who earns a living writing scripts would "sell out" (for a lack of a better word). Hey, we all gotta eat, right? Like TJ said, money's the mean not the end.

All this talk about art and shit, that's such BS. Working for a studio IMO would be no different than working at a McDonald's - you do what you're told or pack your bags and if anyone has a problem with that then they should start their own business and see how far they'll get.

Quoted from Blakkwolfe Not to offend you, DM, but I suggest you do this. Get yourself a job flipping burgers for a while. Call it research. Get to know those people under the paper hats and then see what drives them to "stoop to that level." Maybe thier Mummy and Daddy couldn't afford to send them to college. Maybe they are a single parent trying to pay the rent to support thier family, cuz the boy said he loved her and bolted as soon as she got pregnant. Maybe he's a dad trying to save some extra cash for a better guitar for his son. Or maybe they just need the health insurance. All these people might be "stooping to that level", cause that's what people DO. People have to WORK. You can write all this art house drivel til your brain explodes, but ain't nobody gonna care if you can't appreciate, relate to and respect that girl who just handed you your burger and fries.

I've worked my share of shit jobs, so I know what I'm talking about. I also come from a single parent home, and I paid rent to live there after I turned 18.

Also I don't eat fast food of any kind whatsoever so I actually think I've got my moral bases covered.

And here's a quote you must've missed in your thorough reading.

"the clerks who serve me, may have extraordinary talents, but their job does not warrant my respect."

But thanks for that presumptious dissection of my character. How well you must feel you know me.

...

The fact that you COMPLETELY missed the point of my post is impressive in itself but then you go on to attack my writing, accusing me of being unable to write relatable characters. Look, if you have any specific feedback please leave it in the thread of my scripts, otherwise feel free to send me a PM.

I'm not quite sure how to address last paragraph since I don't recognize myself in there. however, I will say that if writing the stories I love, the things I live and breathe for constitues "art-house" drivel, then I shudder at the alternative.

I wonder why some people say stuff like "no offense" before they go on vitriolic rant. It's like those girls in high-school who would say "No offense, but you look like a whore!" to each other. I don't get it.

Well, I digress.

Quoted from Death Monkey But thanks for that presumptious dissection of my character. How well you must feel you know me.

You are correct, sir, and I offer my apologies. I was out of line and slightly ticked off at the comment, however, the rules of "think first, post later", certianly to me. Sorry.

Well then, apology accepted.

I'm dying, dying, dying...

Quoted from Father Aaron, at Cielo's "Enta Via."

Ah, but death is such a sweet disciple of secrets.

Jessica Euringer, with the holy man, drinks much wine and says,

And to think that I've been searching for the meaning of my life.

10/16/07

And the thread vanishes.

Sandra