Comments on: Writer/Directors and Co-Ops

By: Anna

Anna — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:08:27 +0000

Someone just told me about this:

http://www.solostream.com/2006/09/20/set-up-a-videoblog-part-deux-or-how-to-easily-add-quicktime-video-to-your-wordpress-site/

I guess it will answer all of my questions.

By: Anna

Anna — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:19:47 +0000

Rachel: The writers are relinguising certain up-front money but if a film gets made the writer will be paid for the script in full. And perhaps for some rewriting as well, though I don't know about that. In addition he'll get a position of some power and the chance to be actively involved in the making of the film from a to z.

But I was actually going to ask a question that has nothing to do with this co-op.

Because I just noticed that this site is powered by WordPress.

I know one is supposed to be able to publish videos (QT, Flash, movie, whatever) on a WordPress blog but apparantly some kind of plug-in is required. I'm basically very disinclined to work my way through technical problems, but it looks like I need to, so I have two questions: 1) Which plug-in do I need? 2) Is this complicated or a simple matter?

Thanks in advance.

By: Rachel W

Rachel W — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:54:55 +0000

In theory it sounds great, and indeed it might be a good step, but it does kind of worry me. Others have brought up the danger it might present when scripts don't get made. But I have a different concern as well.

I understand that the idea is if a screenwriter has more power in the making of the film, then they'll be more tied to how it does at the box office (that is, presuming the not really true premise that good movies make more money). They'll be rewarded in the end. And relinquishing up-front money for "more power" seems somewhat dubious. Power in filmmaking is not exactly clean cut. You don't automatically have it just because you have a certain position of supposed power. I worry that screenwriters could be giving up cash for the promise of more power, but that in production that "power" might not materialize. How specific and binding are the clauses of the agreement?

By: Anna

Anna — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:33:23 +0000

I think this is a very well thougt-out deal, advantageous to both parties.

The writers do take a huge risk because it's unlikely that more than one film, say, gets made under this deal (I'm basing this assumption on the fact that scripts tend not to go into production, generally speaking). But in the unlikely event a script does go into production it would be hugely rewarding for the writer. Perhaps not financially, but in terms of artistic control.

But what makes this really worth while, for the writers, is the fact that there is a reversal clause that takes immediate effect (says Craig Mazin), the writers are free to take their scripts elsewhere should WB not be interested. I'd say that this tips the scales in the writers' favour.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:14:19 +0000

OK, my english is not too good so I’m probably not getting this. From what I understand, with this deal, writers are encouraged to write commercial, succesful movies, so that said movies can gross more money at the box office, and the writers earn more money. So, in my opinion, this works great for movies like “300″, “spider-man”, the pirates of the caribbean series, “The Departed”, etc. These movies -at least for me- have great stories and it’s a fact that they were box-office hits. But my question comes here, what happens with movies like “Little Miss Sunshine”, “Running Scared” or “Harsh Times”. These movies (again, in my humble opinion) also come from excellent scripts, but their box-office gross wasn’t spectacular. Wouldn’t the writers end up losing with these kinds of movies?

By: Seth

Seth — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:40:35 +0000

Could you kill a member? I’d give fifty bucks to somebody to off Bruce Joel Rubin and see if he comes back rubbing clay on Demi Moore. I’ll give you another fifty bucks if he does.

By: John August

John August — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:14:18 +0000

Various answers to various questions raised:

Yes, those dollar figures are high, and yes, they're correct.
No, I haven't read the Goldman draft of SHAZAM! Our approach is apparently vastly different, so it doesn't incorporate any of his stuff.
In order to join the Writers Co-Op, you can also save the life of son of a member. So it's not that exclusive at all.

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:49:39 +0000

There are a few writers who get six figures a week on polishing work – but you’re talking about a very small number of people (maybe half a dozen) and only on projects which are already greenlit.

Furthermore, when you hear stories about a script selling for $2 or $3 million dollars, bear in mind that number is NOT all guaranteed. Generally a big chunk of it is paid upfront, but an even bigger chunk is “production bonuses” – eg, paid to the writer in the event that the movie gets made and they receive solo credit. It’ll be cut in half if they share credit.

By: Johnny

Johnny — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:56:46 +0000

Erik, not sure about your point. My point was to say that top directors (and actors) still get better deals than top writers. Of course Pay-or-Play does not pertain to screenwriters. Writers need to create or, well, they’re not doing their job. Ultimately, a top writer should be paid top dollar for his or her work AND get points. That’s all.

By: axel

axel — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:33:15 +0000

So if the movie doesn’t get made, no payment? I hope these gents are including a reversion clause.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:30:55 +0000

I believe I remember reading here (from a user, not John) that Goldman did an earlier draft of the script, but John hasn’t responded to the question of whether or not Goldman’s draft will be incorporated into his own.