Quoted from Dreamscale Rick, I haven't read either script.  I watched both movies and have to assume that the setup, plot, story, characters, and their dialogue is based on the written script. What am I missing here? My point, which continues to be impossible to get across to anyone, is that a script/concept/whatever you want to call it, doesn't have to reinvent the wheel to be "good". When you have a solid, believable setup, likable, believable characters, who act, react, and speak like real people, you're off to a pretty damn good start, cause, obviously, the vast majority of movies don't understand this. Now, granted, you may not "like" the movie, but at least you're not going to be laughing out loud, grunting and sighing in pain, or screaming how fucking pathetic it is, when they get these oh so simple things right. And, IMO, when someone does that, they've written a good script and chances are in its favor that a decent to good movie will result in  the efforts. Does that make sense? Do you understand what it is I'm trying to say?

The only thing you're missing is that without having read the scripts we don't know how close the films were to the original vision.

The same people wrote and directed Blackwater so you'd imagine they were close, but the Bear may have been a good script that was badly handled, for whatever reason.  One of the writers wrote one of my favourite horror films as a kid...House. Who knows?

Chances are that you're right, but in better hands it perhaps could have been a good film. My only point is that we don't know having not read the script.

As for the point about good scripts...it's purely subjective at the end of the day. You like solid, well written pieces even if they are derivative...I don't tend to.

Rogue and Blackwater both flopped at the BO and neither are hugely popular with audiences (Blackwater less so than Rogue).

I would say one of the critical reasons for their lack of success was the subject matter...ie the premise of the script.

Huge Croc=Lake Placid. It had already been done. The film had no USP. B-Movies tend to need to stand out: even if it's something ridiculously stupid like Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus.

Blackwater is almost identical to Open Water, except crocs are a lot less scary than sharks and being stuck on land is less scary than being in the middle of the sea.

One of the writer/directors of Blackwater went on to make YET another Open Water/Jaws rip off...the Reef. Some seem to like that as well, but it absolutely tanked at the BO again.

I would strongly suggest it's because it's just too damn derivative. Talk about a one trick pony! Let's make Open Water yet again, but we'll have just one big shark like Jaws instead of lots of small ones!
To me there are fundamental flaws in scripts like that...and I wouldn't have gone near the scripts as a financier to be perfectly honest. In a world of so many movies, you've got to give the audience more than that IMVHO.

I also think they are both too slow for that kind of film, Rogue especially. The slow build up workled for Mclean in Wolf Creek because he used the landscape and subverted so many horror cliches along the way...he kept raising dramatic questions. In Rogue it was just drawn out for no real reason. Blackwater lacked tension and interest for me. You could argue that they are problems with the script....but as I say, that's subjective.  

Rick, I apologize for continually saying the same thing with different words, but for some reason, you don't seem to understadn what it is I'm saying and maybe someone else can chime in and help me.

The movie Bear had ZERO chance of being a "good" movie, based on the lame script, in which the characters were written as irritatingly as possible, with the most ridiculous, over the top, completely far fetched, stupid back stories imaginable.  Same goes for the dialogue.

Like Black Water, this was meant to be a "serious" survival nature horror piece.  It never had a chance, unlike Black Water, which at least seems to work for a number of people.

There is a HUGE difference in these scripts, be they derivative or not.  It doesn't matter.

Case in point - for some unknown reason, people tend to eat alot of Hamburger Helper casseroles.  I have to believe that they enjoy them and feel they're a good value.  In reality, however, they're not a very good value at all and they taste like crap.  You can make your own version of any of the "flavors" for the same price or less and have it taste so much better.  Same dish, only better.

Same movies, only 1 is better, and the reason why it's better is obvious...to me, at least.

As for various movies "flopping" at the Box Office, I think we need to take into consideration the story behind the films.  Rogue is a very interesting one and everyone should read about it online.  The Weinsteins pumped in some $20 Million more than the original budget called for, put together a movie that is critically hailed, and fans seem to love it as well, yet for some odd reason, barely even released it, pissing off many, many fans.

Black Water was filmed for around $700,000, and should easily make that up in DVD rentals, Netflix revenue, DVD sales, etc.  How couldn't it?

I understand you perfectly, we just have a difference of opinion.

And, again, you haven't read the script, so it's impossible to say whether it was the writers or others who introduced the things you don't like.

But let's say for the sake of argument it was a very poor script, which I can believe.

Ultimately it's the Directors fault the film is crap. If the script was crap, he should have changed it or dispensed with it entirely.

I've not seen the film, but even judging from the very poor trailer, the story has enough to make it interesting. The car rolling scene is probably more interesing than anything in Blackwater, for instance. Lose the gun, get people alone in nature against a savage predator... I'd be confident I could turn a story about people being attacked by bears into an interesting, fast paced film.

Just think about that scene itself and how much more interesting it could have been made in more accomplished hands.

The problem is the FX are terrible, the acting is terrible, the cinematography is weak...frankly the Director looks like an outright novice. (and having quickly checked IMDB..he is).

Ultimately all we are arguing about is the fact you think Rogue and Blackwater were great and I didn't particularly. Both films were executed well enough, but left a lot to be desired as films as far as I was concerned. So it would be impossible for me to praise the scripts, because they were flawed from my point of view.

They were almost certainly better scripts than Bear (which seems like an ultra low budget movie at best), but that's not really a lot to get excited about at the end of the day...although that point is yet to be proven as we haven't seen the scripts.

They are all just derivative of past films, just made to varying degrees of quality.

If the actors that worked on Bear got hold of the Rogue script, and you exchanged Cinematographers and FX teams, I doubt you'd think much of the Rogue script.

OK< Rick, one last time, and I'll give up then.

You keep saying you understand me but the words you write after that statement lead me to believe that you don't.

The point I've been trying to make from a few pages back has to do with things that are very easy to control in a script, that a writer is in charge of, at least initially.

Someone is in charge of greenlighting a picture, based on a script that has been written.  Someone likes what they see in that script and puts together a team to make the picture.

MOST movies do not get the very simple basics correct, and I have to believe that's based on poor writing to start.

I'm talking about setup and characters, and I'm also talking about those character's actions, reactions, and dialogue.  I'm using the low budget horror industry as my template, and actually, the 2 movies, Black Water and Bear.

Now, you know, when you read critic's reviews of films, they often talk about the writer and the script, when they bring up things that are stupid, don't make sense, etc.

That's all I'm saying here and my point is that the vast majority of professional writers, as well as the vast amount of people in charge of greenlighting projects, so not understand this.  Period.

It has nothing to do with a film being derivative.  It has nothing to do whether you or0 I like it.  It has everything to do with giving a movie every chance you can to make it be a quality picture.

This is why the horror genre has such a bad name...cause the simple facets of screenwriting aren't being handled properly..not even remotely properly.

The premise in Black Water was solid.  It was believable.  The characters were solid.  They were believable.  They acted like human beings and even spoke like people. They did not make stupid "movie" decisions.  They were not to blame for their predicament.  And they fought hard to survive and take care of each other.

None of that can be said for the other movie in question here, Bear.

OK< I'm done.  Sorry for all the rambling.  I've got a UFC card to watch shortly!!!

Take care, man!

I do understand you, but you keep ignoring what I say: )

You are blaming the script in the same way that critics do. For instance Armored got savaged by critics and they all mentioned how the script was the problem.

After reading the script, it turned out it wasn't....they completely changed it for the film and it made no sense.

Even with the best of intentions this can happen...you try and change a couple of things you aren't keen on, then that affects the turning point later, so you have to change that, that effects something else...in the end you change the whole thing, or you don't and all of a sudden there are major plot holes that never used to exist.

So many things can go wrong whilst shooting, in the edit...things that were good on page don't work because you haven't got the budget to do it properly.

When it comes to dialogue and reactions..a lot of that can be down to bad acting. Go on youtube and look at classic scenes from cinema redone by amateurs. The same great lines sound like farcical nonsense in lesser hands.

You keep saying you have to blame the scripts for problems in the films, but we have no evidence of that because we haven't read the script.

You're just assuming which is my whole point, essentially.

From the business side of it, Companies may not greenlight movies based on the script...many Producers and financiers won't even read it. They want to know what it's market is, why you think it will sell etc etc. In the Hollywood system movies get greenlit without a script even existing!

I went to a fundraiser for a UK horror called Splintered. They hired out a suite in an expensive hotel, did a big pitch to all the wealthy people showing the Cinematographer's showreel, potential returns on horror etc. They raised the $1M or so they were looking for...no-one who gave money read the script. What does a dentist know about scriptwriting? He might just have expendable cash, fancy playing the Film Producer, or just want tax relief on his money.

I'm sorry...I don't mean to ignore what you're saying.

Let's break it down to the smallest components and go from there, without bringing in any real life stories, movies, examples, or anythign else.  OK?

We have $5 Million all ready to make a movie.  It doesn't matter where it came from or from who.

We have 2 scripts written about the exact same subject.  They have the exact same # of characters, the same antag, the same setting an require the exact same budget.

Script A has a believable setup, believable characters who act and react believably, and say things that come across as believable.

Script B has a poorly thought out, cliched setup, ridiculous, cardboard, cliched characters who do not act and react remotely believably, and they say things that come across as laughable, even though it's supposed to be a serious movie.

Which one of these scripts will give this project the best chance of becoming a good movie?

The answer is shockingly obvious, right?  This is my point, Rick.  I don't care who's writing the script, changing the script, editing the movie, or catering the shoot.

The point is you can do an awful lot to make the movie potentially better by writing a solid script, based on the above mentioned aspects.  Period.

Is that more clear now, or the same thing you've thought I've been driving at all along?

We just have a difference of opinion on how believable characters and stories come about when they are transferred to film, I suppose.

What you are saying seems obvious to you and there's certainly some or even a lot of truth to it, but I believe there is an awful lot more to it than the script.

Good casting and directing will make reactions believable, good casting can turn the mediocre lines into good, believable lines...and the converse is true mediocre or even good lines can be turned into laughable ones by poor actors and Directors who don't know what they are doing.

I know you said to ignore examples, but in this Bear one, I think we can demonstrate that the script wasn't wholly to blame.

There are strong action beats in the story, so the structure looks fairly solid. You've got the first encounter with the bear, then the momentary lull to lead people into a flase sense of security...then the "Oh Shit" moment when they realise there's another, bigger, stronger bear coming for them.

A better director would have made a better film as far as I'm concerned. There's a lot of comments on IMDb about how you even see the boom op. and numerous production lights from behind trees. It sounds as though he didn't have a clue what he was doing.

On the plus side the bear looks a reasonable actor...certainly better than the humans they got.

Let me ask you this:

In your opinion, if we sat together with the script the exact script they had to work with, do you think we could have made it into a better film?

And another point: we should stop getting into these bloody theoretical debates. We could write two decent survival horros in the time it takes us to argue back and two.

Next time we feel the urge, we should just go to the collobration thread and make one up of our own.

Rick, I'll address your last question to me.

In your opinion, if we sat together with the script the exact script they had to work with, do you think we could have made it into a better film?

Rick, I'm not a film maker, so I don't see how the question makes any sense for me.  I don't know what the budget was, I don't know what the length of the shoot was, the limitations they had, etc.

Do I think I could write a better script involving 4 people trapped in a car with a killer bear terrorizing them?  Of course, I do.  In fact, I know I could.  It doesn't matter though, as it's not the point here.

I bet the vast majority of writers think they could write a better script and the vast majority of film makers think they could make a better movie.  The real question is why did these 2 hack writers get paid to write this drivel, and why did no talent director get paid to make this movie?

Maybe the better question is why does this kind of thing happen all the fucking time in the movie business?

And, BTW, I don't feel like we're arguing...at least I'm not arguing.  I'm trying to make a very simple point, but for some odd reason, you won't acknowledge it...even in theory, which I don't understand.

Just finished my new script, Bear II, which starts up right as the original Bear ends.  It's a real white knuckle special.  

The question is meant to show that I believe if we had been given that exact script, we could have turned it into something better...and that's the Director's responsibility at the end of the day...to make sure the story is good.

A Director among many other things should have an extremely strong grasp on story, otherwise how the hell can he make a cohesive film .

I'm just saying that I don't think it's the script's fault, so much as the Directors and that the script at least had an interesting premise with natural conflict. So it had some merit, even if it wasn't great.

As for why they got the money...they live in LA and probably pitch for money every single day with different projects. One of them has produced and directed 23 films. He makes low budget genre stuff geared towards a particular market.

As someone once said...if you are not getting two rejections a day...you're not working hard enough.

When was the last time you pitched something? I've never pitched anything in my life.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films As someone once said...if you are not getting two rejections a day...you're not working hard enough.

OMG.
I love the harsh truth to it!

If PTBarnum brings his freak show & circus to a mid-sized town and only a hundred people show up - he isn't working hard enough.

Makes sense to me.

Rick, I've never had the opportunity to pitch anything.

I guess I may start arguing now, as I disagree with something you keep saying.

You continually say the Director is responsible for the script and you seem to be saying that he has complete control over making any changes he wants.

So, let's take another theoretical example.

We've got a $25 Million budgeted movie, in which a an A-Lister writer's script has been purchased for $750,000, and the writer has also been hired to be involved in all aspects of the process from Pre to Post Production.

Are you telling me that IYO, the Director has the ability to completely change what happens in the script, as well as the dialogue?

Now, I don't know the answer, but I'd imagine that the decision would come down to whoever is putting up the $25 Million if there are any disagreements on set.

The writer was hired for a reason.  His script was chosen for a reason.  The script matters and is a fundamental element of the finished movie product.

Quoted from Dreamscale, post #143 OK, Rick, one last time, and I'll give up then.

I knew that was a lie at the time, actually.

Quoted from Dreamscale The point I've been trying to make from a few pages back..

For real -- and now it has been a few more pages.

This thread is for Netflix instant-play recommendations, guys.  It is starting to get out of hand here.

Depends who is directing it, I suppose.

Like the way The Sheriff of Nottingham script that everyone loved got turned into Robin Hood by Ridley Scott.

On the other hand, we saw earlier on this thread I think about the Puppetmasters....the studio made the Director go back to the old script.

In that latter instance, you've pretty much doomed the film IMO because you can't have a Director filming something he doesn't like and expect it to be very good. Would have been better hiring a Director who got the script in the first place if you just wanted someone to shoot it faithfully.

Going back to Armored..that was the subject of a bidding war...went for $1M or so...the Director still changed it massivley (for the worse in that instance) and that was a script all the studioes loved and they rushed into production.

Who is an A-lister writer anyway? You can probably count them on two fingers.

On the artful writers forum Jim Turman, Derek Haas and numerous other pros will tell you how much their scripts got changed..from Cliffhanger, to Fast and Furious etc.

I downloaded Silent Hill by Rogery Avery the other day...it's nothing like the film. He gets paid probably in the hundreds of thousands and they still dispense with it.

Usually the Director will come on board and work on the script in consultation with the Producers...and maybe other parties (eg Marvel in the superhero films) and the studio will sign off any changes.

They even have multiple versions of scripts on the go, and in some instances end up picking bits out of each (which happened in the first hulk movie).

There's no set way though. By all accounts Clint Eastwood selects scripts he likes and makes no changes whatsoever...even if the writer himself thinks he knows how to improve it.

Was wondering when we'd get shut down!

Sorry!