Ello Ello

Just a quick one from a not too active member.

Do you guys think making it as a screenwriter is not down to your strength as a writer but down to the strength of the stories you have to tell?


Thanks

Matthew

Very few writers achieve success without having both aspects of screenwriting locked down.

Matthew,

I second what Toby says.  If I had to pick one, then I would say strength of story would trump strength of skill.  

If you wrote a perfectly formatted story about a guy who watches paint dry on his days off from maintaining the card catalog at his public library, I'd stop reading around page 1.  

However, if you wrote a story with horrible grammar about a serial killer who captures people and amputates their limbs but keeps them alive, only to starve them and feed their own limbs back to them, I'd read that as long as it was interesting.

Jordan

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and this is very true in terms of who makes it and who doesn't make it.

Those with talent, who persevere can make it as well, but it will be a rough journey.

The funny thing to me is that so many writers who have made it, lack talent in both areas, IMO.  Look at all the movies that tanked.  Look at all the movies that recieve scathing reviews form both real critics and the general movie going public.

A great story is completely a personal opinion and it's those personal opinions of those in power, who make the decisions.

JUst because a script is made into a movie, big budget, small budget, no budget, doesn't mean it's a great story or a great script.  It simply means that someone(s) liked it enough to take a chance.

Quoted from Dreamscale The funny thing to me is that so many writers who have made it, lack talent in both areas, IMO.  Look at all the movies that tanked.  Look at all the movies that recieve scathing reviews form both real critics and the general movie going public.

A film is a lot more than just a script. A script is merely a blueprint and can be pHucked up by so many more factors than the writing.

Name one writer that has made it you consider you are better than.

Quoted from Dreamscale JUst because a script is made into a movie, big budget, small budget, no budget, doesn't mean it's a great story or a great script.  It simply means that someone(s) liked it enough to take a chance.

Writers (that have made it) are mostly commissioned based on their past achievements.

Famous haha?

You are in the wrong business, kid.

Ask any non-writing friend who is their favorite screenwriter -- then take note of that blank stare.

Quoted from DustinBowcot A film is a lot more than just a script. A script is merely a blueprint and can be pHucked up by so many more factors than the writing.

Really, Dustin?  Gee, that's amazing news.  I had no idea.  I thought the writer not only wrote the script, but also did the filming, the set building, the FX, the wardrobe, the directing, and the producing.

Thanks for that nugget of in info.

It always amazes me when peeps stick up for writers and act like they can do no wrong.  News Flash!  News Flash!  Many, MANY times, it's the script that sucks ass and the shit movie that follows has no chance because of the shit script.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Name one writer that has made it you consider you are better than.

Jim Wynorski,  J. Andrews, Jay Andrews, H.R. Blueberry, Harold Blueberry, Bob E. Brown, Daniel Fast, David Gibbs, Heny Henri, Noble Henri, Nobel Henry, Noble Henry, Andrew James, J.R. Mandish, Rip Masters, Sam Pepperman, Tom Popatopolous, Bob Robertson, Rob Robertson, Salvadore Ross, Arch Stanton, Jamie Wagner, and Thaddeus Wickwire.

Happy now?

I think this probably relates more to fame within the industry... being the go-to writer that everybody expects success from.

I would love that. The thrill of accomplishment and then the adoration that follows. Not for the person, but for the work and general ability of the writer.

In regards to the question, it is the complete package and then some.

Quoted from Dreamscale Really, Dustin?  Gee, that's amazing news.  I had no idea.  I thought the writer not only wrote the script, but also did the filming, the set building, the FX, the wardrobe, the directing, and the producing. Thanks for that nugget of in info.

Well you went from talking about bad writing to talking about movies. The script and the movie are two different things.

Quoted from Dreamscale It always amazes me when peeps stick up for writers and act like they can do no wrong.  News Flash!  News Flash!  Many, MANY times, it's the script that sucks ass and the shit movie that follows has no chance because of the shit script.

I think we're talking about two different things. We started out talking about writers that have made it. Clearly our definitions of 'making it' differ.


To me, this...

Quoted from Dreamscale Jim Wynorski

...is not making it.

I imdb'd some of those names, Jeffro, and got a good laugh.

The Hills Have Thighs. lmao

Wynorski has over 150 movie credits to his name and is a very wealthy man, Dustin.

Steve, you know all those names are the same person, right?  They're all Wynorski's alias'.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quoted from Dreamscale Wynorski has over 150 movie credits to his name and is a very wealthy man, Dustin. Steve, you know all those names are the same person, right?  They're all Wynorski's alias'. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Exactly. To me, making it isn't about the money. It's about respect.

Clearly, there is no-one in the world better at this stuff than Jim Wynorski!

Another thing... he's also a director and producer.

If you're just talking about being a writer of crap like that you have very little chance.

I like Jim Wynorski.

Some of his stuff is unwatchable. But then some of it's like 'Chopping Mall'. Good fun.

Hey guys,

Thanks for your informative opinions. I do understand that if I or anyone else wants fame, they're in the wrong business in terms of screenwriting. I guess I chose a sexy thread heading for more impact.

I do agree that the paremeters of 'making it' have to be set. I'm not prepared to do it because I honestly don't know. But, respect for me, seems like something which needs to be in there.

And I am of the opinion that a lot films that do 'suck', messed up a good script because of no clear vision. You have to remember the politics in feature film making and the non-existent power that writers usually have. If we as writers have hardly any power, then I doubt it's us writers fault for a lot of these films going wrong.

I'm not saying that if writers had more power, there would be better films. I honestly don't know.

I just think that a riveting story from a good writer is worth more that a mediocre story from a great writer (both beginners). And lets not fall into the trap that great stories are totally subjective because that's a dangerous path you're going down. There are some stories that surpass others, and we know this, because some became films and stay in our memories when most have faded away.

Matthew

Quoted from Majorgeneral316 I just think that a riveting story from a good writer is worth more that a mediocre story from a great writer (both beginners). And lets not fall into the trap that great stories are totally subjective because that's a dangerous path you're going down. There are some stories that surpass others, and we know this, because some became films and stay in our memories when most have faded away.Matthew

"Great stories" are totally subjective, sorry to say.

And the key is in your last line - why do so many movies leave our memories instantly?  Because those stories sucked from the start, but someone thought they were great.

There are so many good stories (and scripts) that can be made into good films, but the vast majority never really have much of a chance.

My strength as a writer is weak as all hell in truth, everyone knows this, a lot of people have told me my writing is terrible over the years.  Heck, even I know it is and no one can tell me otherwise because they're lying if they do.

The stories are stronger, more effort goes into my scripts than writing.  I must use the same terms, emotions and actions twenty-thirty times over the course of a single script because I can't be asked to look-up more word terms.

There are great writers all over the world that are good at the craft but terrible at conveying the story they're trying to tell.  Most of these people are successful.  

Me, being at the opposite end of the spectrum with TERRIBLE WRITING yet STRONG STORYTELLING makes me have ZERO chance of getting anywhere with this.

Famous?  Nah.  Never.  Produced, see last statement.

Quoted from Leegion There are great writers all over the world that are good at the craft but terrible at conveying the story they're trying to tell.  Most of these people are successful.

I don't believe this to be true. Name a great writer where this is the case.

Quoted from Leegion Ehren Kruger, James Cameron, Jonathan Nolan/Christopher Nolan, Stephanie Meyer, Melissa Rosenberg, Peter Jackson... 3 words come to mind:  overpaid, overrated, over-hired. James Cameron hasn't had a hit since 1992's Terminator 2.  His latest, Avatar, being a complete ripoff of Dances With Wolves. Ehren Kruger, though a good writer (who keeps getting hired) not only single-handedly desolated Scream 3 but is also responsible for the catastrophic Transformers 2, 3 and likely 4.   The Nolan Brothers wrote 1 good movie, The Dark Knight, and nothing else is any good.  Memento had its merits, but Inception was... well, god awful. Stephanie Meyer is loved by fan-girls of the Twilight franchise yet cannot write worth a damn and yet has made millions.  Melissa Rosenberg is also adored by the same fan-girls for adapting these Twilight books into feature-length movies, but can't write to save her life. Peter Jackson is only successful because of his work on pre-dated FANTASY BOOKS and/or remakes written by Tolkein and/or based on a film from the 30s and no one would even know his name without those movies on his list of credentials.  Ala, his success was born on another man's success. ------- Great writers who are successful yet terrible at conveying their stories.

This has got to be a wind up...

Peter Jackson. James Cameron. Two men who have actually had to practically revolutionize the way movies are made in order for their stories to be to actually be told in the visual medium. Terrible at conveying their stories? So terrible they had to re-invent wheels in order to them the justice they think they deserved. And Peter Jackson was doing it before he adapted LOTR, btw. He's the poster child for DIY.

While I don't like all their stories, to say they are terrible at conveying them is crazy town.

And about that 'fan-girl' thing. The ability to successfully entertain a certain demographic should be applauded and admired. Especially when there's so many $$$ are involved. This is not the sign of a 'terrible' writer. While we can talk about 'subjectivity' until were blue in the balls, there comes a point where it lapses into lunacy...

Subjective opinion.  They each have great movies:

Terminator, Terminator 2 - James Cameron
Braindead, The Lovely Bones - Peter Jackson

But, those are 2 of what, 10 movies?  Jackson has LOTR and Hobbit, King Kong was okay, if not a bit blase due to the casting of Jack Black, and why Brody's character didn't JUMP off the ship in New York...

Cameron's Titanic was a masterpiece yet a disaster, overly long, fueled by a relationship that felt forced and OTT, I mean, they fell in love after 2 bloody days, not to mention how many times in Titanic the characters used another person's name in dialogue "Jack, Jack, hey Jack, no Jack, Jack!" along with the whole "not enough room on the wooden door" thing at the end just to make it "heartbreaking".

Yes, they've revolutionized filmmaking, but you have to admit flaws in their writing.  Rose could've moved over for Jack, JACK could've jumped off the ship in New York but instead stayed aboard for zero reason other than to have him HAVE to go to Skull Island in the first place.

Desolation of Smaug and Avatar, the two latest of each director/writer, have been utter garbage because they've either ripped off other stories (Dances with Wolves) or haven't been true to the source material (Tauriel), or characters conveniently showing up when they're most needed just to save Kili from dying by Orc poisoning, or Neyteri showing up just before the General kills Jake in Avatar.

Sure, they're fantasy-fiction, but this stuff just feels convoluted.  Maybe Fran Walsh had something to do with the problems in Desolation of Smaug, but it is somewhat Jackson's responsibility to make sure it doesn't come off as contrived BS, he is the writer-director after all.

-----------------------

Whenever I'm writing a script and the main character gets in a dire situation.  I don't simply bring another character in to save him last minute from dying, the chances are more likely that he's literally going to die in that exact moment.

I did this in AoS and hated it because it felt too fake.  This is why I'm removing all the "saves" from the script and making the characters fend for themselves rather than relying on others to come rescue them last-second.

The job of a writer, even in fantasy, is to convey a story that feels real.  Unfortunately, when characters show up out of nowhere to save the day it feels fake, and this is a problem not just Jackson and Cameron have, but a lot of writers have.  Characters halfway across the world or nowhere near the scene should not appear in the next scene to save someone from dying.

Unless, it's a superhero movie like Spider-Man, and then it's okay because he has super powers and isn't a normal human being, so he should get there quickly in that situation.

That's why, these days, there is ZERO tension in movies.  You always know what's gonna happen because the formula never changes and a lot of GREAT writers are to blame for this.

Terminator 2 too, Terminator showing up on the conveyor line two-seconds before T-1000 kills Sarah and John...

Quoted from Leegion Cameron's Titanic was a masterpiece yet a disaster

Like the real thing...

I think I might quit the internet.

Quoted from Leegion Subjective opinion.  They each have great movies: Terminator, Terminator 2 - James Cameron

Cameron hasn't really done much in 33 years and I personally think he is overrated, BUT:

Don't forget Aliens.  And Terminator 2 is virtually Aliens, but with killer machines instead of...aliens.

I also like True Lies.

Quoted from Leegion That's why, these days, there is ZERO tension in movies.  You always know what's gonna happen because the formula never changes and a lot of GREAT writers are to blame for this.

I avoid most Hollywood films for precisely this reason so I can't argue with you on that... however,  I cannot agree that this is the writer's fault.

Films are a business and businesses follow successful formulas. If you want to set up a business, then research successful businesses similar to yours and copy their models. If you, as an executive, take a chance on something different, then it's a gamble. Little better than going to the casino and betting red or black with millions of your own money.

Personally, there is only one guy I rate in the whole of Hollywood. That's Tarantino. That man is original and has real talent. If he has flaws, I couldn't give a pHuck about them. I don't care to break down and analyse films, or even think too hard about them, I just like to enjoy them. And that's the way I like to write too.

Quoted from DustinBowcot That's Tarantino. That man is original and has real talent. If he has flaws, I couldn't give a pHuck about them.

He really isn't original. Even he admits it. I saw an recent interview with him and he said his genre of filmmaking is re-working things that have been done before. He's good at what he does. But no doubt that he steals a lot of stuff.

Quoted from deadite Don't forget Aliens.  And Terminator 2 is virtually Aliens, but with killer machines instead of...aliens.

Terminator 2 IMO is one of the best action movies of all time, top 10 for sure.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I avoid most Hollywood films for precisely this reason so I can't argue with you on that... however,  I cannot agree that this is the writer's fault. Films are a business and businesses follow successful formulas. If you want to set up a business, then research successful businesses similar to yours and copy their models. If you, as an executive, take a chance on something different, then it's a gamble. Little better than going to the casino and betting red or black with millions of your own money. Personally, there is only one guy I rate in the whole of Hollywood. That's Tarantino. That man is original and has real talent. If he has flaws, I couldn't give a pHuck about them. I don't care to break down and analyse films, or even think too hard about them, I just like to enjoy them. And that's the way I like to write too.

Tarantino... well, I'm not sure ANYONE could argue with you there, mate.  He is without question one of the best in this industry.  From Pulp Fiction to Kill Bill and Dusk Til Dawn all the way to Four Rooms (neglecting Django because I haven't seen it), this guy, I don't think, has a bad idea in his head.

He's not perfect, sure, none of us are.  We all use ideas from other people, but he has never, to my knowledge, written a bad movie.  

Say, I was to write a buddy-cop movie, right?  What would I write?  Two cops?  Nah, I'd go the risky route and employ a time-travelling cowboy from 1881 in the year 2241 and have him team with an Alien from another planet to take on renegade Elves who are selling some form of magic-go-go-juice on the black market or something, lol.

That's likely what Tarantino would do in reality.  Take a classic idea and spin it...

Speaking of which, I have my next script...

Quoted from Demento He really isn't original. Even he admits it. I saw an recent interview with him and he said his genre of filmmaking is re-working things that have been done before. He's good at what he does. But no doubt that he steals a lot of stuff..

Recent?  LOL, For decades, QT's been snagging ideas from other artists and making them work 10x better (City on Fire?  OK movie.  Reservoir Dogs?  A classic).  He's a rip off artist, and yes, he has admitted to it and not just recently.  Do I care that he does that?  No, everyone does it - including me - so who can complain?  He just does it the best.  QT is my 2nd favorite director next to Scorsese and I have nothing negative to say about him.

He's original enough for me... maybe he just does it better than everyone else so I notice it more.

Directors don't write the stories. Not sure why they get the credit they do when all they really do is direct the actors. Yes it takes a good director to make a good film, but they don't have much to do with the story unless they've written it too.

Quoted from Guest Recent?  LOL, For decades, QT's been snagging ideas from other artists and making them work 10x better (City on Fire?  OK movie.  Reservoir Dogs?  A classic).  He's a rip off artist, and yes, he has admitted to it and not just recently.  Do I care that he does that?  No, everyone does it - including me - so who can complain?  He just does it the best.  QT is my 2nd favorite director next to Scorsese and I have nothing negative to say about him.

I said I saw a recent interview with him where he said his genre of filmmaking is reworking stuff that has been done before. I hadn't seen him be so open about it before the Kill Bill movies came out.

In the City of Fire case, at first he denied it. He said he hadn't seen the film and will try to "check out this Hong Kong version of his film". Then later on he said he loves the movie and has a poster of it in his apartment. He wasn't very open about it in the beginning of his career.

I remember an interview with John Landis where he said he saw R.Dogs and remembered City on Fire because in City on Fire when they put on the black suits, one guy asks "why the suits?" and another replies "blues brothers". So when he saw dogs he thought to himself "I've seen this movie". Then few years later he met QT at a party and walked up to him and asked him "hey, I have to ask you something about R.Dogs" and he said he saw that QT could sense what was coming and replied "Yeah, City on Fire".

I'm fine with what he does as long as he is open about it. He's made tons of money and has a ton of fans so he's doing something right, good for him. But he's not original, he blatantly rips off far too much stuff.

Funny story about Scorsese. I saw an interview with Peter Weller once. He said he made some short movie and stole some shots from some other movies, one of them was a Scorsese film. He felt bad so he wrote a letter to each director to tell them which shot he stole from them. Week later he got back a letter from Scorsese in which Scorsese told him something along the lines "Don't worry about it, I've stolen most of the shots in my movies, the one you stole from me I stole from .... " :)

You need to tell a unique story in a unique way. You need to know how to write. However once you have that going for you, you need well-placed contacts.

I know a project that has what I consider to be a very average script (half the scripts I've read on here are better than it) and it's got so many offers it's turning away money because one of the producers is very high profile in his genre.

Sometimes I can't understand how writers see stories.
Why criticize James Cameron? He served for any possible target audience a story they liked (maybe except of very old people). Yes he has good marketing, but that's what most of them have.

Titanic – he arrived at his audience
Terminator – he arrived at his audience
Avatar ...
Aliens...
...

What I mean. Why are any of his stories bad? If I'm not always in his target audience why should I blame him his film has to be cleverer, fulfill my expectations and my standards? He had the youth and the kids, young families who liked Avatar. And the technique freaks. That was his target audience. They liked his story.

Same with Titanic and the couples watching it.
Are there so many couples who said Titanic isn't good? Even the men? I don't think so. He received world famous with the help of exact his target audience.

It seems as we writers want high quality hybrid films for everybody. We should know better how difficult that is. Impossible.

Some look back and say: yeah, Star Wars. It's for any age. Pure classic.

Anybody really believes back in the seventies a forty year old men or women watched Star Wars. So, now they must be around 80 years old. Not seen a fan base of 80 years old Star Wars fans. It's a youth movie. And what disturbs us now when we listen to Jar Jar Bings is what disturbed the audience back in time with C3PO and BEEP BEEP R2D2.

Just my two cents. Those perfect hybrid movies for kids, adults, and also any kind of taste. I don't know if they exist, maybe rarely they do...

It's like somebody writes a children movie and those writers say, boring, it's not thrilling me. They think the writer and director have to fulfill their expectations too. Wrong. If it's children movie-it's a movie for children -  And only they are the critics.

Good points there Prussian! I agree.

FWIW, I hated Star Wars.  ;D

Maybe it's just luck, because the movies at the big box lately suggest that talented writers does not it take to make a movie on a big budget.

Quoted from PrussianMosby Sometimes I can't understand how writers see stories.

Many don't. You can write all you like, but unless you've got a story you'll go nowhere.

And story has been analysed since Aristotle. 10 Things I Hate About You is a modern retelling of WS's work - same story for a modern audience.

It's as much about what you want to tell as it's about what the audience wants to hear.

While way too many writers here and elsewhere want to write about horror, way too many people want to go see Twilight remakes such as Hunger games where no real blood's drawn and it's really all about who likes (loves) who. That's what your target audience wants (a majority female audience attends the screen).

Quoted from Grandma Bear FWIW, I hated Star Wars.  ;D

Some all time classics can be a personal cinematic disaster I guess. I was falling asleep when I watched LOTR 2. Slept like a baby. Maybe it's worth the bucks to have such a deep sleep in our hectic times. My cinematic nightmare is if I would have to watch the whole trilogy... awake.

Quoted from Forgive It's as much about what you want to tell as it's about what the audience wants to hear.

Yes. That's the way I think too. Perhaps I would even change the sentence that way:

It's more about what the audience wants to hear than what you want to tell.
(That said: you have to be honestly involved in your own stuff or it doesn't work.)

I think it's more about what you want to tell... the audience doesn't know what it wants until you give it to them.

Hey guys,

Sorry Dreamscale, great stories are not 'totally' subjective in my view. I don't see how because some producers think a story is good and it ends up being 'crap' proves that stories are totally subjective.

And how do you know the story was bad from the start? It's notorious for people within the industry to talk how much changes a story or script goes through.

There are formulas to writing good stories to a degree, in terms of structure, plot and characters. I accept it is subjective to a degree as well. I just don't think it's 'totally' of either.

Quoted from Majorgeneral316 Sorry Dreamscale, great stories are not 'totally' subjective in my view. I don't see how because some producers think a story is good and it ends up being 'crap' proves that stories are totally subjective. And how do you know the story was bad from the start? It's notorious for people within the industry to talk how much changes a story or script goes through.

Well, the words "totally", "never", "always", etc. are rarely correct, obviously, but I think you'll find that no matter what film you're talking about, there will be at least 1 person who disagrees with the masses.  So, I'll use one of the above words for the Hell of it - Great stories will never be agreed on to be great by everyone, which to me, makes them totally subjective.

How do I know the story sucked ass from the start?  Well, I don't know that all the time, but if a story is extremely dull, cliche, stupid, moronic, senseless, foolish, or just downright not good, then, I know it was the writer's fault originally for writing a shit script, and then secondly whoever financed it and championed it and turned it into a shitass film.

Quoted from Majorgeneral316 There are formulas to writing good stories to a degree, in terms of structure, plot and characters. I accept it is subjective to a degree as well. I just don't think it's 'totally' of either.

There sure are and the vast majority of writers who follow those boring, old formulas are doomed to write boring, old, cliche, shitass scripts, which will be turned into shiutass movies - wash, rinse, repeat - the cycle seems to go on forever.